• Ie P.O. Box 1842

Vol. I, No.1

CONSERVATISM: Strength from Academia

STEPHEN J. TONSOR

THE SUMMER of 1953-an exciting time in the world at large - my wife and I and our two small children spent, as we had spent the previous two summers, atop a ten-thousand­foot peak in the Sawtooth Mountains of central Idaho, watching for forest fires for the Forest Service. One can­not imagine isolation more complete. And yet, in that isolation, we heard echoes of the great events unrolling in the world below. Stalin had died in March, and from our fire tower we heard of the abortive East German re­bellion and of turmoil within the leadership of the Soviet Union. For a moment it seemed that the Soviet em­pire might come unraveled.

One day that summer I hiked four miles-and four thousand feet down - to meet the ranger and pick up a month's accumulation of mail. My mentor, Joseph Ward Swain; a distin­guished scholar of the history of an­tiquity, had clipped various articles and reviews which he thought might be of interest. Among those clippings was a review, in the New York Times Book Review of May 17, of a book by a young historian at Michigan State College, Russell Kirk. The book. The Conservative Mind: From Burke to San­tayana, had been a surprising success. As I read it in my lookout on Ruffle­neck Peak I had no way of knowing that the book was an event on a par,

See CONSERVATISM, page 10

Stephen]. Tonsor is a professor of in­tellectual history at the University of Michigan.

The • gao eVlew

Ann Arbor, HI 48100

FREE

Soviet Chemical Warfare GREG PAMEL Documented Tragedy

Ever since Ronald' Reagan became President, the left has accused the ad­ministration of sufferring from a sort of anti-Soviet paranoia. For months liberals disbelieved State Department reports tl}at Cuba and Nicaragua were supplying Soviet arms to Marxist guerrillas in El Salvador. This incredulity continued to a point where even after Fidel Castro has openly admitted supplying the gueril­las with arms, the libenils still has­tened to scream, "There's no concrete proof!"

Then in Berlin, September 1981, Alexander Haig made statements con­cerning reports that Soviet Union was using chemical warfare in Southeast Asia and Afghanistan. This would be in strict violation of two international

treaties - the Geneva Protocol of 1925 and the 1972 Biological' and Toxin Weapons Convention-both of which were signed by Moscow. Again liber­als dismissed Haig's remarks for lack of sufficient evidence. It could more justifiably be said that the left has been suffering from anti-American paranoia.

Evidence that the Soviets have been using chemical warfare dates back to the 1960s in Yemen. Civil war had broken out with Saudi Arabia backing one' side and the Egyptians with strong Soviet aid supporting the other. One of the worse chemical at­tacks, as the ABC News Close-up special "Rain of Terror" (Dec. 21, 1981) reported, occurred at Gahar where 75 villagers were killed. The

Taking the HA" out of the A.C.L.U.

ELIZABETH MAURER

Since its birth in 1920, the Amer­ican Civil Liberties Union has claimed to be the nation's leaders in preserving the freedoms our forefathers fought so hard to establish. The ACLU has said that their purpose is to maintain through the United States and its inhabitants the right of free speech, free press, free assemblage and other civil rights, as well as to take all legit­imate action in furtherance of such purposes.

The ACLU was brought into being largely through the dedication and concerted efforts of Roger N. Baldwin, who remained the chief officer and inspiration of the Union until the 1950s when he retired. Baldwin is

characterized by his eagerness and earnest desire to effect social changes. The ACLU became the vehicle to implement his world view of society.

Does the ACLU's record of activism and involvement over the past six decades reflect consistent agreement with its stated purposes? Or has this influential voice of American free­dom in actuality been pursuing their own course of freedoms and been using the American System to instill its own ideas about freedom and last­ing unity?

S~e A.C.L.U., page 8

International Committee of the Red Cross, after performing autopsies, declared that gas has been used.

Al Hussain, leader of the village of El Kitaf, which had also suffered an attack, told ABC News that the planes were Russian. Three bombs were dropped, later identified to contain the choking agent, phosgene gas, kil­ling 120 and hospitalizing 150.

David Smiley, a retired British Colonel, was at that time advising the Royalist forces who were among the victims of the gas attacks. He had seen a dead Russian pilot from a heli­copter that was shot down near Marib. As he told ABC News: "And he couldn't have been anything but a Russian .. Not only by appearance, but all the documents on him - the maps, the documents-all in Cyrillic, Rus· sian writing."

Then, in 1976, reports of commun. ist chemical attacks in Laos. The Hmong tribesmen of central Laos wer~ the first to make these reports describing a yellow cloud of smoke - which they called "Yellow Rain"- that was so toxic, it killed within hours.

The Hmong had fought with Americans in the Vietnam war and for this reason, they believe, have become targets of revenge by the Vietnamese and Pathet Lao.

Their claims were not taken seriously at first. Yet more and more appalling tales by Hmong refugees describing similar incidents were re­ceived. Reports also came in from

See WARFARE, page 10

·******** An Address ********************* THOMAS R. FOUS ********1 to the Freshmen Class

As a senior jogging through the si­lent streets of Ann Arbor at 11 : 15 p.m., one cannot help but reflect upon the four years spent suffering within these hallowed confines. A serene, peaceful lull blankets that city and university like the first fallen snow. The only motion present is un­derclassmen scurrying from the li­brary, anticipating a humorous monologue by Johnny Carson. Ann Arbor has developed into a model American city.

The city fits the mold. Leaves are in perfect, neat rows piled high by the curb of each residence and every au­tomobile has been properly treated with a synthetic silicone protectant in preparation for a gruelling Michigan winter. Another Thanksgiving cele­bration has passed with all the members of the family full and con­tent.

The University of Michigan has matured along with the city. Cafete­rias and dormitories are tidy and clean. Instructors and students are cordial and complimentary and all the leaves have been picked up by maintenance crews. Coolers and alcohol have been reduced in number at Michigan Stadium and lenient mar­ijuana laws have ,been subject to in­vestigation. Polos and Izods ae more prevalent on campus than fatiques and flannels on any given day. After four years, one notices such things.

Things wer~ not always so ,in this . AI~American city. At one point three

of every four students were boycot­ting classes because of low black en­rollment at the University. Vietnam protests, featuring the likes of Tom Hayden, blocked streets for fours in this now model city. The annual Hash Bash brought national notoriety with thousands jamming the Diag to exercise their personal freedoms. Classrooms were filled with hecklers echoing the voice of the times. Black­boards were smattered with eggs from violent students disagreeing with a particular remark from an in­structor.

This type of disorder and mayhem has virtually disappeared from Ann Arbor. Occassionally disturbances erupt on the Diag protesting anything from investments to South Africa by

Page 2

--~-

the University, to military .research on campus. But to the average stu­dent on his or her way to class these events have little impact.

But this is not to say demonstra­tions are a dying fad, and certainly not to say that movements of any po­litical origin on campus have been extinguished. The radical movement has always been an essential ingredi­ent in the formation of thought for the impressionable college student. Today's radical movement is a differ­ent beast than the movements en­countered during Tom Hayden's era. The leaders of the movement at hand have supplanted emotion and im­pulse with foiesight and organization.

The political tidal wave of the Eighties is nQW beginning to come ashore. The emergency of a commit­ment to a rational social order is gain­ing attention from the establishment outside the "ivory" walls of the Uni­versity. The word "university" itself derived from the Latin term univer­sitas, denoting the whole of or the universe, has been expanded to the "establishment" - once the adversary of the college student.

The wave of recommitment has abandoned the utopian agenda of the sixties. The liberal agen~a as it stood in the sixties has little purpose in to­day's movement.

The liberal agenda is now without cause. For the true liberal to succeed, a fear must be instilled in the masses. Instead of positive solutions, dema­goguery is their only weapon. Fears

are not as easily spread on campuses today, or at the least , they are not as detectable . For the freshmen entering the college ranks many fears and evils have been brushed aside and ig­nored simply out of self-protection. The "ivory" walls protect the fresh­men class- especially in Ann Arbor. And as a consequence, silence has overtaken outrage because, in an un­certain world, college has once again become a luxury.

The latent liberal agenda has now given way to a pragmatic and prudent order borne of a fearful freshmen class. Fearful not of the instructors or the institution, but of economic un­certainty which prevails in the post­graduation milieu. The subsequent product of a silent, fearful class is apathy .

The only movement beaming from the apathetic fringes is one with con­servative origins. The turbulent "es­tablishment" outside the ivory walls has jolted the apathetic average fresh­men to a rebellious conservative

course. For this reason conservatism, although not popular in Ann Arbor, is no longer laughed and scoffed at by the student populace.

But an underlying mystery exists in this present-day radical phenom­emOl1!. During the sixties when a de­monstration was announced thou­sands would attend; announcements today are vieyved as undersirable and inconvenient. Fiery speeches, once immortalized for their dramatic im­pact and damning delivery, are now laughed at and scorned.

To fully comprehend the emerging radical conservative, one must view the transitory nature of the college scene. During the sixties and sev­enties an abrupt departure from the status quo to a new order was de­manded by the college radical. The radical of this era gave little thought to the reaction of "establishment", the faction that would ultimately con­tinue the plight of a new order . Any large bulky system is resistant to an abrupt change, and as history has proven, the advances made were only temporary. The competative at­mosphere engulfing the campuses presently has overridden """the emo­tional tendencies of the sixties and seventies. The struggle is not with the "establishment" but with the text­book. The dynamic college life is now molded around corporate interviews, employment opportunities, graduate school admission scores and G.P.A.'s. Fear, not resistance, is the foundation of this collegiate characteristic. To disdain these important elements of an education would be foolish, but as Archibald MacLeish said, "we are de­ludged with information in our studies, and have lost , or are losing our human ability to feel them."

The freshmen class will eventually , after four gruelling years, reflect on whether they themselves have lost their ability to feel. As a senior de­parting these secure "ivory" walls, one can only hope four years of informa­tion does not stifle one's ability to feel. ...

'l'be MicllIpD Review December. 1982

i '.~

I j 1

1 1

J

j i

1

I j

I

""'e~~~ItN"~,j~""'W"'>4'M,"",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

The Mlehll(ao Review, Ioe.

& •• AA •• ~~.AA~ •••• •••• •••• • • ••••••••••••••••••• ~~??~T??

There is nothing more difficult to carry out, nor more dangerous to handle, than to initiate a new order of things.

PUBLISHER Thomas R. Fous

EDITOR·in·CHIEF Ronald J. Stefanski

MANAGING EDITOR Douglas A. Mathieson

,

EXECUTIVE EDITOR T. H. Barnett

ASSOCIATE EDITOR Peter Bauer

STAFF:

Becky Lovell/Betsy MaureriPaula Ponsetto/Peter Bauer/Mary Villeneuve/Eric HoechstetterlTed Barnett/Kathy Warner/Jane Kernicky/Hemant Pradhan/Matt Somerfield/Eric McDonald/Emil Area/Richard Kaye/Richard Kaye/Nancy Kassel/Greg Pamel/James Frego/Steffani Etelamski Hallie Rea

PUBLIC RELATIONS: Dawn Otten; Jean Lesha, Assistant

HONORARY ADVISORY BOARD: Paul W. Mc· Cracken, Stephen J. Tonsor, C. William Colburn, Peter Fletcher

SUPPORTERS: Gerald R. Ford, R. Emmett Tyrrell, Russell Kirk, Irving Kristol

SPECIAL THANKS: Lacy Advertising, Ann Arbor; Jeanne McClaren, Promotional Perspectives, Ann Arbor; Don DuBoiS, H&Z Typesettil1g, Ann Arbor and especially Kim

THE MICHIGAN REVIEW welcomes and appre· ciates letters from readers. Letters for publication must include the writer's name, address and tele· phone number.

Those interested in submitting articles for pos· sible publication should send them to:

The Michigan Review Suite One 911 North University Ann Arbor, MI 48109

Letters may be sent to the same address in care of the editor.

All letters and articles must be doubled·spaced. We regret that we are unable to acknowledge or to return any unpublished material.

All articles submitted for publication will be reo viewed by the editorial staff. Each article will be reviewed for both structure (style, grammer and flow) and for content.

The editorial staff will not change the author's opinion or the spirit of the article - the integrity of an article will be preserved.

Changes, however, will be made for reasons of clarity. The writing style of~he author will be main· tained when possible. Those articles based on in· correct facts or premises are unacceptable for print.

Articles that express opinions differing from those of any editorial staff member will not be rejected for that reason. Such articles, as any other, may be rejected for reasons of structural or factual basis. Articles printed will be selected on the basis of content value. The decisions of the Editor·in·Chief will be final.

Copyright 1982; by the Michigan Review, Inc.

Looking back to see forw~rd

PAUL W. McCRACKEN

The mortar of common consent concerning what our society is all about has been dissolving. It is essential for· us to find a broad new consensus about the kind of game we want to play or a modern Edward Gibbons will have even more scope. than his predecessor two centuries ago for writing a Decline and Fall.

Here some history is in order for, as Churchill once observed, the farther back you look the farther forward you can see. The great ideas that shaped what we might call the basic American system had their origins in liberal thought, largely English, of roughly two centuries ago. Here such names as David Hume, Adam Smith, and Edmund Burke would come im­mediately to mind, but it would also include such people as, for example, Schiller in Germany or Madison in America or de Tocqueville in France. These men were impressed with the fact that England 'experienced a great burst of cultural and economic progress following upon limitations placed on the powers of the Crown. Could there be a connection between these two historical phenomena? They concluded that there was a logical relationship. And out of their philosophical work emerged the underpinnings of the great liberal tradition in the fundamental meaning of that term that, then, became the foundation for our own political and economic systems in America.

The basic function of government, as these men saw it, was to provide a framework within which the ingenu­ity and creative powers of all people would be free to operate. This, of course, did not deny that government had certain responsibilities for what we might call collectivized consump­tion or investment (e.g., national defense), and those who assume that Adam Smith considered the only good government 'to be a dead gov­ernment should read Book V of his Wealth of Nations. The basic struc­ture, however, was to be a govern­ment of limited powers maintaining the rules-of-the-game framework. Within this framework, then, could be expected to emerge spontaneously a life of far greater complexity, diver­sity, richness, and sense of self-ful­fillment than if government attempt­ed itself to decree in advance the spe­ific patterns and designs and blue-

Why could this be expected to occur?

For one thing such a liberal system could make use of an aggregate of knowledge and creativity which does not exist in its totality in anyone place. A more centralized system, on the other hand, can make use of only that inevitably more restricted span of knowledge which is within the purview of the authorities, the few, at the top. If life is to consist of only what they can see, know, think up and blueprint, only a small fraction of humanity's total knowledge and crea­tivity will be utilized. We see the force of this in the economic domain today if we contrast the pleasure of shopping at a modern U.S. depart­ment store with the far more restrict­ed variety of offerings in the dreary atmosphere of Gum's in Moscow - or the equally dreary post office or state liquor store in the U.S.

Second, the basically liberal or free system has an answer to the question at the heart of progress. How can the new and better be made to replace the old? This is perhaps the most dif­ficult problem to surmount in achiev­ing progress for the new and better, and an environment that encourages this probing. In the open and liberal system anyone is free to try out a new idea. This is important. New things often come from the most unlikely sources. Henry Ford was a night engi­neer at the Detroit Electric Lighting Company. A new concept for a water softener came from a former Federal Reserve Bank official. The cold wave revolution for hair curling came from two Twin Cities fellows who had no basis for knowing anything about the beauty parlor industry. Now if the new idea, cannot make it, and most new ideas do not, little in the way of social resources has been lost in the probing. If on the other hand it is suc­cessful, the rewards can be large - in prestige, in fame, and in a material way. It is in short an efficient system for encouraging probing.

it prevails no matter how much it might be opposed by the Establish­ment who seemingly ·ought to know best" about such things.

The liberal free and open system, in short, provides a logical process for achieving continuing disestablish­mentarianism. The Establishment will always tend to oppose progress­not only from selfish venality, but out of a sincere inability to believe that the new and different could be better. Thus railroads did not emerge from steam-ship companies, the automo­bile age was not ushered in by wagon and carriage makers, diesel locomo­tives were not even pioneered by steam locomotive manufacturing companies, and professors have been known to resist new material because their old and well-rehearsed lectures

. were more comfortable. If the Establishment controls the in­

troduction of the new, the processes of progress will inevitably be arthri­tic. This is a key problem of state· organized economics today. If the Ministry of Locomotive Manufactur­ing is responsible for locomotives, it is the Establishment, and it will have the usual establishmentarian bias against new-fangled ideas. However avant garde these state-organized systems claim to be ideologically, in their operational realities these eco­nomics are ultra-reactionary. (Per­haps the academic analogue is that faculty members who pride them­selves on their avant garde thinking are often ultra-reactionary when it comes to changing the curriculum.)

It is, therefore, not surprising that these illiberal, state organized eco­nomies inherently cannot provide the richness and diversity of new and better consumer goods and services for the people that the liberal, market· organized economic systems offer. They can build steel mills, construct dams, or wage war, but the one thing "peoples' economies" inherently can­not do well is to be sensitively re­sponsive to the wants and needs of people themselves. The logic of their structure makes this result inevitable, and the result is dramatically clear to

See LOOKING BACK, page 1i

I ' prints of the "good life."

Moreover, a liberal or open system is organized to make sure that today's new which is better becomes tomor­rows standard. This is the most diffi­cult aspect of continuing progress for any social system to achieve. The lib­eral, open system has a logical an· swer, and it achieves this by allowing customers in open markets to express or vote. their preferences (whether the "product" is a new widget or a new art form). If they like the new, through the pressures of competition

Paul W. McCracken is Edmund Ezra Day university professor of business ad­ministration at the University of Michi· gan, former chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers under President Nixon.

TIle MicIUgu RevIew December. 1982 Page 3

'"'1}:<'''''\'"

hge4

In Response to Needs and Demands

Change does not occur in a vacuum. All political and cultural shifts produce a rip­ple pattern which penetrates the surround­ing social fabric.

The most dramatic cultural shift in recent history took place in the 1960's and the repurcussions of this turbulent era con­tinue to be felt in the American political arena.

The "anti-establishment" attitudes of the 60's released a series of backlashes unpre­cedented in V.S. history . In the fires of re­bellion, a new social conscience was forged. The healthy distrust of authority which emerged brought with it a flood of self-proclaimed crusaders for justice. Polit­ical activism became the goal of every edu­cated 'man and woman, and for every so- , cial ill, real and imagined, federal legisla­tion was offered as a cure.

College students of the 60's were over­whelmed by the battle cries of the "War on Poverty", and at the same time plagued by a guilty conscience resulting from our questionable involvement in Vietnam. They leaped feet-first into the whirlpool of activism -lashing out against what they mistakenly understood to be the cause of society's problems - the capitalist system.

But the quest for Utopia by college stu­-dents during this era proved to be a doom­ed one. The "War on Poverty" soon ended without_ a victory, leaying taxpayers and minorities as its casualties. Activism be­came the,hobby of a few aging actors and sheltered college students, and it became apparent that raw emotion is no substitute for_, a persuasive and rational argument. The deafening screams of the radical left for a "workers' revolution" drove' away th~ very workers they were supposed to at­tract. The decidedly antiiestablishment at­titude which prevailed among members of all radical groups had the same effect. And so, in search of a cause, the 1960's student radicals proclaimed a takeover of the liberal banner. To fight the establishment, they created the.ir own liberal establish­ment.

The de~de that followed the left's shift in position proved to be the demise not only of the worker's voice, but also of the American Dream. To satisfy the demands made by the tibe;al establishment, the government began to implement vast "so­cial welfare- programs which ballooned the national debt to over a trillion dollars. A more damaging effect, however, was the gre,dual erOsion of the work ethic, with its ptomise of success as the result of in­dividual effort.

The social misconduct of students during the 1960's brought to the surface a new breed of activists demanding change. They demanded change because the political power had become too centrali25@d, and the abuses of power too cornmon. The unsatis­fied contingent entering college in the late 70's and early 80's began to challenge the bromides of liberalism with a unique style; unique because they had relinguished the irrational principles of their predecessors and had set a new course for a more pru­dent order. This new brand of radical, re­pelled by the blindly altruistic intentions of their 1960's counterparts, sought to purge the college activist movement of its guilt­ridden and emotional tendencies. ,

Thus, the 1980's brought with them .a tide of change in college students, with its roots in a profound respect for the free­market and individual liberty. A radical dissenter of conservative origin was born­a dissenter who was not concerned so much with maintenance of the status quo as with the creation of a better future. ~ The results of the 1980 elections proved , that the unsuccessful liberal blueprint for change had been abandonded by the

, American people. The time was ripe for action-and what better setting than Ann Arbor, Michigan, a city transformed by the chaos of the "era of upheaval", to serve as the backdrop for a revival of rational polit­ical commitment?

A i-oup of adherents to this new political commitment conceived of a forum in which to . present their concerns and desires to the rest of the college population. The forum would take the form of a re- ' view, a scholarly piece devoted to essays, commentary and issues salient to college life.

The idea was to confront the existing liberal media on Michigan's college cam­puses. The dream had been born, and only a spark was needed to ignite the powder­key, of dissatisfaction among the radical activists.

It happened on a Tuesday in October of 1981. An editorial appeared in The Michi­gan Daily, the University's ~dent news­paper, condemning the College Republi­cans and its chairman, Thomas Fous. Fous, a former employee of The Michigan

. Daily, sought an appropriate tactical rebuttal. A scheme was devised after a con; servation with Alan Miller, a Detroit News writer and NationaJRe'\dew con­tributor, who had written an article per­taining to the Dartmouth Review's con­temptuous attitude toward the university in Hanover. The scheme involved taking

the liberal establishment head-on by bat­tling philosophy versus philosophy.

The drama started to unfold as Fous began contacting sources on the plan to bring a conservatively-based reyiew to the University of Michigan. Paul W. McCracken, distinguished economist and presidential advisor, encouraged the idea and pledged his support. The enterprise would eventually manifest itself as The Michigan Review. For Fous, a former writer for The Flint Journal, the for{Ilation of a student publication came easily. He set about the task of securing bonafide writers and staff personnel. Ronald J. Stefanski was appointed Editor­in-Chief. Stefanski, an English major, proved to be the perfect addition to the Review's mixture of satire and com mentary.

Along with the tasks required to estab­lish such a publication, certain less tangible assets are 'also necessary to insure the longevity of The. Michigan Review. A host of reputable individuals have given their acknowledgment and support to the enterprise. Among them are: Gerald R. Ford; Russell Kirk, famed conservative in­tellectual; Peter Fletcher, former Republi ­can National Committeeman; Irving Kristo!, renowned neo-conservative; R. Emmett Tyrrell, editor of The American Spectator; and 'Stephen Tonsor, history professor and conservative intellectual.

The radical conservative seeks to mesh the essentials of the conservative philos­ophy with the 1960's flair for instigating reform. The hope is to concretize the "best of the tried and true" with the hope of ar­riving at a rational order, based not on the whims of self-proclaimed social reformers, but on a deep understanding of human nature. The quintessential purpose of The Michigan Review is to confront the exist­ing liberal establishment on Michigan's college campuses by presenting this new perspective in a clear and precise manner.

The radical conservative nurtured by a generation of idealists, politicized by the 60's need for social rearrangement but not overwhelmed by the emotional and guilt­ridden excesses has arrived on the college campus. Their desires and concerns are now articulated in The Michigan Review.

*********************

TIle 1IUdIipII ..... DIIcember, 1M2

'dId!I* .~_~_ ~. _~;~~.~,-~ .... ~ ....... "-.,." .... ~"" •. ,,.~ ..... ~ ...

-----------------In Praise of a Recession ------I

Let Them Eat Cake

All the Nobel prize-winning work in the field of economics has yet to produce an effective land similarly harmless) antidote to the ills of mod-

. ern capitalism. That is to say, there has yet to be invented some cure for inflation which does not have any re­cessionary side-effects. There is no way to cure inflation and unemploy­ment at the same time. (No, fans , not even supply-siders have the answer to this one) . If we are to combat infla­tion, we must necessarily tolerate an interim degree of unerllployment. On the other hand, if we were to fall prey to political expendiency, we would take arms against unemployment, fully realizing that we will he conjuring up an inflationary whir­wind in the process. So be it. As William Safire suggests, we are given Hobson's choice. That is, no choice at all.

What is of greater concern, then, is all the attention given these days to the ravages of unemployment. We are currently winning the war against inflation on Wallstreet, and losing it on Mainstreet U.S.A. as more Ameri­cans are added to the ranks of the un­employed. But it is grievously unfair to berate proponents of the inflation­fighting set as being unnecessarily callous (and almost invariably em­ployed) . Those who have Been crippl­ed by unemployment would do well to comprehend the current situation. It is not enough to placate people with the proverbial you-can't-have­your-cake-and-eat-it-too sedative, when a curative is actually what we are after.

This has only fawned the wave of resentment against the president and the First Lady, who have borne the brunt of the "callous crusade."

. Witness the media's repeated ploys to invite comparisons between Nancy

RONALD J. STEFANSKI

and Marie Antoinette Ii.e. "Oh let them eat cake") .

There are a number of things to

keep in mind. Here first of all, unem­ployment, contray to what everyone thinks and every politician promises is nqt the primary threat to long-term economic stability. Inflation, rather,

. takes the cake. So then, we cannot ex­pect to find quick-fix solutions. We would do well to take our medicine, without the spoonful of sugar at all. There is nothing sugar-coated about the corrective to inflation.

For it is the seemin·g intractabilitY of inflation over the past several de­cades that has warped American val-

ues which have traditionally reward­ed the thrifty. It has made a mockery of those who have exercised pru­dence, and tossed them into a rat race for survival, as the elderly have been . forced to live on life savings which have been rendered worthless by in­flation. Add to inflation's record of devastation the horrendous ramifica­tions it poses for our foreign balance of payments and world trade posture. The horrors of unemployment pal~ in comparison. although they are made to appear more severe on a personal level. A media overwhelmed by emo­tional land irrational) excess has painted a picture of human misery

'-

~ VI SCO(j~AG.fD

:! COL LEtT,

lHtR£FOf(E

PICK· UP CHECKS '--____ I I WORKERS

:J: AM.

"" \~

FREEDOM HAS A PRICE JAMES FREGO / -

Toward the end of his term in office, Jimmy Carter instituted a plan which called for all young men born since 1960 to register for the draft. At eighteen. Ronald Reagan. while dis­agreeing with the program during his campaign for the presidency, decided that it is in the best interests of the country, and therefore he continued it. Most young men (936) have re­sponded by following the president's directive .. yet there remain approxi­mately 500,000 who have not. The 'Reagan .Administration recently decided to prosecute some of the people who have, for one reason or another, refused to register, thereby

'I1Ie MkIdpJI Rmew o-tIw. 1982

risking conviction on a felony charge that carries a maximum sentence of five years in prison and a $10,000 fine.

The Reagan Administration is on record as being in fClvor of the current all-volunteer army. Hence, worries that registration will lead to a peacetime drift are unwarranted. The main reason for the advance cat­aloguing of names is to speed up the drafting process, shoult it ever be­come necessary. The United States currently has an army stationed in Europe and a division in Korea. If these were to be attacked, it would be necessary to get reinforcements to

them as quickly as possible. Pre-draft registering means that we could have men in training camps within thir­teen days of a national emergency, instead of the months needed had registi"ation not taken place.

Originally, 160 non-registrants were to be prosecuted. From these. the seventy most adamant were chosen as the first to be brought to trial. So far. three have been tried and convicted. Ellten Eller, the first of the convictions, was sentenced to three years probation and 250 hours of community work ... and ordered to . register . Recently. the case of David Wayte was thrown out of court be-

and defended it from a supposed hu­man interest point of view. ~

What escapes the notice ot tnose who are promising not to stay the course in Hie months ahead (risking

We are currently winning the war against inflation on Wall street, and losing it on Mainstreet U.S.A.

aU the progress that has thus far been made). is that winning the war against inflation will provide a cor­rective to unemployment. When in­flationary expectations have been sufficiently quieted, we will see an orderly resumption of growth which will bring on the jobs without fatten­ing the social pork barrel. The same claim cannot be made by putting un­employment ahead on the list of eco­nomic priorities. Promising an im­mediate end to unemployment neces­sarily implies an inflationary return to increase government spending, high taXes Ito pay for that spending). and an aU-too-rapid return to eco­nomic stagnation as the economy ever-so-soon buckles again under the excess.

Obviously the fight against infla­tion is not nec~ssarily the popular choice in the realm of things politic., But perhaps better than to bemoan our inability to simultaneously have our cake and eat it too. we should not be telling anyone to eat cake just yet.

.... cause the government would not al­low the release of Pentagon and White House documents pertaining to the draft registration process and would not let White House counselor Edwin Meese take the witness stand

The problem here is not the govern­ment's alleged bias against vocal non­registrants; the real problem. or per­haps the pity, is that the court system has essentially tied the hands of the administration and severely damaged its efforts to dissuade resisters. Granted, our judicial systeQ'l is what elevates the United States above much of the world with regard to the equaliy of men. yet it can become harmful when it prevents the govern­ment from performing its duties.

CONTINUED

PIige 15

' :'('"

z Laissez Faire!------------~-------= T. H. BARNE1.T

PR.OTECTING OURSELVES

I am ofte·n told, when arguing in defense of a truly Free Market, that the greatest oll.:. stacle to Hberty :- and the strongest justifi­cation for government intervention - is the corrupt nature of man. Human beings, my statist friends contend, are a greedy, short­sighted, selfish, and iuationallot. In other words, they are dangerous to both them; selves and those around them.

It is therefore ne<;essary. the argument continues, that some external and objec­tive guiding force intervene in order to pre­vent the citizens from practicing a number of great evils. These "evils" include: riding motorcycles without helmets, gambling, taking drugs, reading pornography, and participating in deviant sexual acts. Statists (and by that I mean "those who advocate increased government expansion" - be they Democrats or Republicans) consider the State to be the external and objective guid­ing force that is needed.

The statist argumen~, therefore, reduces to a simple contention: human beings are both self-seeking and, at the same time, self-destructive. In order to maintain the delicate structure of society, it is necessary to establish a huge, armed, political institu­tion as the ultimate arbiter of justice.

......

This conclusion, however, is not a valid consequence of its premises. Not only is human nature an inadequate justification for government intervention; it is, in fact, the source of a convincing argument for opposition to expansion of the stat-e. Those who claim to find the diversity of human desires a justification for restric­tions on personal liberty have a least the onus of proof. In anticipation of such a jus­tifying argument. 1 would like to present my defense of the Free Market in light of the "failings" of human nature.

In order to narrow the scope of this dis-

cussion, I would focus solely on the moral issues at stake. A consideration of the prac­ticality of government intervention into human affairs will follow at a later date (in several installments!) .

The premise of the statist argument may be divided into two distinct contentions: 1.) that men are greedy and selfish. and 2.) that men are ignorant and self-destructive. Nearly all justifications for state paternal­ism -involve one or both of these conten­tions.

Let us first consider the claim that men are greedy and selfish. It seems clear that , in as much as humans seek their own gain. they are Nselfish" and often neglect to con­sider what actions would best serve "the good of society.n Whether such neglect con· stitutes a moral wrong. however, is a ques­tion that can only be answered with re­spect to one's own value system. What is important is that we recognize that a U people are ultimately selfish to the extent that they choose what is best for them­selves and those they love over what is am­biguously defined as "the public good," For the purposes of this discussion, let us accept this contention as a valid premise.

The claim that men are ignorant and self­destructive is more difficult to accept. Al­though examples of human ·stupidity" abound, it is not rational to conclude, as the statists do, that all or even a majority of people are incapable of running their own li~. Nor is it a just solution to deny rights to all members of society in order to pro­tect a reckless few. 1 will not refute the claim that some men are Hdangerous to themselves.· But neither will I be so pre­sumptuous as to declare that my priorities and beliefs should be imposed on my fel­low men. If people .wish to live dangerous­ly, that is their choice. If they want to ruin

"If tlte no.tural tendencies of mankmd are so bad that it is 1101 safe /0 penn it people to be {ree, how is it Ihal the ten­dencies of these organizers are a/ways good?/I

Frederic Bastiat

their minds. 1 have no right to stop them. If they wish to remain ignorant or self-center­ed, they should be free to do so. For lhes reasons, r would dismiss the second con­tention of the statist premise as invalid as a justificalion fo r govern ment paternalism . although the issue warrants a more lengthy discussion.

The only acceptable element of th sta ti st premise, then, is the assertion thot men are greedy or selfish. That is, human · beings can and do sometimes cause harm to their brethren in order to further their own ambitions.

We now come to a consideration of th statist conclusion - that the failings of humans necessitate government interven-· lion. It is here, I believe, that a glaring flaw' in the argument becomes apparenl. If w ac cept the contention lhat human beings are a dangerous lot, it is not logical to con­clude that a elevating a number of mcn to positions of political power is 81ly kind of solution. Politicians. contrary. perhaps, 10 popular belief, are human beings. They sr susceptible to the same weaknesses as any of their feHow men.

In the free market. it is skill and ambi­tion which determine one's income. In the bureaucracy, on the other hand, "pull". "clout", and "status" are the keys to success. A successful civil servant is one who has a vast array of smaller and less powerful de­partments under his control. The enor­mous growth of the U.S. bureaucracy in the last century is testimony to this fact. And so we have an army of men and women whose wealth and power can on ly be increased at the expense of the tax­payers. To solve a problem, the statists have created one. We may be ·prolected~ from One another, but there is no one to save us from our "protectors."

ftelllldlltM Rntew Deoember. 1M2

.'1 ",'

"":' "

, ' ] ,'1\

~~'<'J'~"'~';'''';':N~~l<_~'''''''''''''''''''''d'''''''''>''"''"'>''''>'''' '>

Out to Lunch: Dining with a Liberal

While I was having dinner with my pub­lisher the other day, we discussed, alas (as is often the case), the media as a vehicle for social change_

He began, ''The bank of liberal assets is defunct. They've got no basis for an intel­lectual revival. One by one we've to show them that they do not possess what it takes -an imagination. And what's more, before this social revolution is all over, the war of intellectual wits is going to be waged on the streets."

"Surely you jest," I doth protest. "I mean, after all, isn't that where all the common liberal folk are found - on the streets? Why, if I go out there I might even buck horn with one of these-you know-liber­als."

"If so, then just flaunt it." With that he got up to leave. As he headed toward door, he placed a piece of paper in my hand and said, "but just in case." The note read:

Thoughts for a Conservative to Keep in Mind when Socializing with a Liberal

1. If you are to drink with a Liberal, order something domestic by all means (even Stolichnaya is out). Otherwise, they'll stick it to you about import quotas.

2. Don't wear alligators, tigers or anything of the sort. The liberal you happen to be with is probably an environmenta­list.

3. Don't smoke cigars or a pipe. You'll no doubt trigger a conservation about pol­lution controls.

4. Above all, don't appear too happy. That is their ace in the hole.

As it just so happened, I had a luncheon appointment the very next day with a re­porter from the liberal campus newspaper, Armed with the precautionary bits of advice from my comrade, I went.

Arriving at her table I introduced myself. My, what a radiant day. And you're just all . aglow I see." I was in good spirits.

''Yes_'' (Well, so far so good. No retorts about nuclear energy.) ,"Just what are you about?" she began,

even before I was seated. 'Well, first things first. How about lunch

to start?" "How can you be so smug and content­

and ugh-HAPPY, when there are people out there starving?

'Well, I'm sure there'll be an open table for them shortly."

''You know, you Conservatives are all alike. Nancy Reagan with her new China service, you wanting to order lunch and all. I'll just never understand."

"Everything in its place, my dear. You must realize we did come here for lunch. What I think you fail to realize is that you have to allow yourself some moments for indulgence - it makes for a better state of mind. The world's problems will still be there when you're ready to confront them, again. And you know, it doesn't hurt to contemplate your own weaknesses now and again. I'd be happy to discuss why Trilling was wrong about the sale intel­lectual tradition in this country. But please, go hand up that frown with your fur coat over there."

She dashed out of the restaurant, before we even had a chance to discuss anything. So I jotted down some notes for future re­ference-and my publisher.

... Nice woman. Funny she's not in the Peace Corp. A bit boring in that redundant liberal sort of way. Displays that typical zeal for heating up a conversation and let­ting the dinner get cold. Worse fault-total­ly lacking any imagination or sense of humour ...

It was told the next day that when the liberal reporter returned to her desk, her editor appeared (sking for her story and she told him she had simply been out to lunch.

CLIMB ABOARD!

Help Support The Mich'igan Review ~ 501(C)3 TAX-EXEMPT STATUS IS PENDING.

~ SEE PAGE 9 TO SEE HOW YOU CAN HELP.

'11Ie ~ Review December, 1982 Page 1

THE

T.A.A.T .. (pRINCETON, N.J.) Due to an increasing demand by college adminis­

trators, the Astute Testing Service IATS) has initiated a new examination, called the T.A.A.T. The Teaching Assistant Aptitude Test is similar to the L.S.A.T. and S.A.T. in form and content It will be used in selecting teacbing assistants for major universities across the count.ry.

The T.A.A.T. will be given four times a year for aU non-union bachelor degree graduates, and once for those holding union cards. Only students who have completed aU work toward their BA or BS degrees will be allowed to take the eXamination. The results of the examination will determine a candidate's aptitude for the duties of a teaching assistant's position.

SECTION ONB

I) The neatness and format of a studenfs paper should:

a I be considered when grading bl not be considered when grading c ) only be considered if the gra'de is on the cusp between two' grades dl only be considered if the paper's format is such that it is difficult to

follow

2) A studenfs participation In dass should be considered:

a I in the final grade bl if the student's grade is on the cusp c 1 if it totally is in agreement with the in.structor dl only if it prevents efficient teaching

31 Personal relationships with students:

a I should be avoided at all limes bl are acceptable if they don't interfere with objective grading c I are permissible if carried on discretely dl are permissible if the student is mature enough to handle the situation

41 Handwri"en notes on papers returned:

a I should be avoided b I should be legible c I should be seU-explanatory d) should never be less than completely serious

SECTION lWO

11 Teaching Asslstant is to student as:

a·) Landowner is to serf bl MasU~r is to slave c) equal is to equal d) executive to employee

2) Grading is most comparable to:

a I evaluating bl rewarding c l punishing d 1 Done of the above

3) Professor is to teaching as.sistnnt a.s:

a I Landowner is to serf b 1 God is to worshiper c I newscaster is to viewer d l Court of Appeals is to tJlaintiff

41 Good lecture techniques include a ll of the following EXCEPT:

8) sarcasm bl information c I question period d) humor

The grading is scored on a scale of 800. with those achieving scores less than 300 encouraged to immediately apply for a position, In addition, a special section is included for foreign-speaking students. All candidates with an English t ranslation problem are generally favored over those with articulate delivery.

page 8

A.e.L.V.

In his 1928 book. Liberty Under Ih Soviets, Baldwin quoted Lenin on the title page. "While the State exists there can be no freedom. When there is freedom there will be no State: In the same book he gave his viewpoint concerning the difference between civil ' liberties in the West and in Russia. " .. ,1 regard them as unlike. Repressions in Western democracies are violations of professed constitu­tional liberties and 1 condemn them as such. Repressions in Soviet Russia are weapons of struggle in a transi­tion period to socialism."

Baldwin wrote: "1 take class posi­tion. It is anti-capitalist and prerev­olutionary . . . I champion civil lib­erty as the best of the non-violent means of building the power on which worker's rule must be based ... The class struggle is the central conflict of the world; all others are incidental. When the power of the working class is once achieved, as it has been only in the Soviet Union, I am for main­taining it by any mea_ns whatever."

In his 30th Reunion Class book at Harvard, Baldwin wrote: "I am for socialism. disarmament and ulti­mately for abolishing the state itself as an instrument of violence and compulsion. I seek social ownership of property, the abolition of the prop­ertied class and sole control by those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal."

In Socialism Of Olir Time he stated : "I would rather see violent revolution than none at aU ... Even the terrible cost of bloody revolution is a cbeaper price to humanity than the continued exploitation and wreck of human Life under the settled violence of the pre­sent system:

It is almost to be expected that the people Baldwin chose to work closely with held similar communistic and revolutionary views. His early Board of Directors included such notables as William Z. Foster, later President of the U.S. Communist Party; Max Eastman, editor of the communist newspaper The Masses, and Elizabeth Gurly Flynn. long associated wi th the communist newspaper, the Daily Worker.

The U.S. House of Representatives Special Committee to Investigate Communist Activities stated: "The American Civil Liberties Union is closely affiliated with the communist movement in the United States and fully 90 percent of j ts efforts are on behalf of communists who have come in conflict with the law. II claims to stahd for free speech, free press, and free assembly; but it is quile apparent

that the main function of to attempt to protect the in their advocacy of fOI lence to overthrow the replacing the American f flag and erecting a Soviet in place of the republic government guaranteed the Federal Constitution.

The California Senate : Subcommit tee on Un-AI livities Report stated: ' may be deftnitely class munist front or 'trans., organization."

The New York State lalive Committee lnves" tious Activities conclud American Civil Libertie the last analysis, is a sup subversive movements, i

aganda is detrimental to of the State, It attempts protect crimc but to encol upon our institut ions in i

William F. Buckley, j the February 4, 1982 Nati concerning the ACLU im the pursuit of amnesty f nam War draft dodgers al

"What we have is anothe ous )jst of activities by U Civil Liberties Union w its current orientation. It a left-wing pressure gr concern for civil libcrties the activities of its ideoloj who are loosely defined I desire to destroy by any r ican society as we know

Tbe December 1980 -National Review stated l

the left - emphnticnUy ACLU - has worked · clock Cor haU 8

breakdown the fed centralized slate pow aside notions of rest scope of federa l activi

Today the ACLU is 0 Abortion Amendments, S Amendments, the cstabl Senate Subcommittee on terrorism. the death . I tigh tening of loopholes it Information Act, the el the Federal Affirmative, grams. the strengthenin~ codes and all efforts to criminal investigative ag

Attempti ng to defend t guaranteed by lhe Bill an admirable pursuit tions can sometimes go 8

.....

TIle MIdlI&u Rem'" o.c:.

",..u.,g-~l'>I>g>. ... ~","",,,,,,,=,,,-_. . ...... _<_~_., ~ ~

Staying the course: In defense of Supply-side economics

HEMANT A. PRADHAN

A recent surge of fashionable at­tacks has condemned Supply-Side Economics as a "mad experiment," favoring the upper-class, and hence, responsible for the high unemploy­ment rate. Perhaps a few examples will rebut that position.

In 1921, when the top income tax bracket (those earning over $100,000) was taxed at rates ranging from 60% to 73%, it comprised 28% of the col­lected income taxes. By 1926, the tax rate on the top was reduced to 25%, which, according to Dr. Yale Brozen of the University of Chicago Gradu­ate School of Business, created incen­tive for earning a taxable, top bracket income, since 75% of every doUar could be retained. The result was an 86% increase in the revenue provided by the top income tax bracket (whose taxes than accounted for 51 % rather than 28% of the collected income taxes), a 12% increase in the average employee's income, and a two per­cent decrease in the consumer price index.

In 1963, income over $50,000 was taxed from 59% to 91%. By 1965, these taxes were slashed by 50% to 70%, again resulting in an increased gross income; reductions in the aver­age tax from 37% to 33.8% resulted in an increase in tax revenue (from $5.38 billion to $7.2 billion), and in the adjusted gross income (from $14.6 billion to $21.33 billion).

In short, strange as it may seem, an increased tax rate decreases the total revenue. Both these situations repre­sented instances similar to when Pre­sident Jimmy Carter left office: the taxation rate exceeded the hump of the Laffer curve. To illustrate the Laffer curve, consider the following situations: 1) Nobody is taxed. Ob-

viously the government receives no income tax revenue, 2) Everyone is taxed 100% regardless of income. What may first appear to generate a maximum internal revenue would, in fact, shatter any incentive to work, and as a result, would yield no in­ternal revenue. Therefore, in order to receive the maximum amount of fed­eral revenue, it is necessary to for­mulate a balance between taxation and working incentives. Thus, as corporate Americll is in fact tending toward bankruptcy, any attempt to rehabilitate the national economy by taxing excess corporate profits is a placebo. In addition, corporate profits are generally put to one use: seeding increased production, there­by creating more jobs.

Consider unemployment. Canada, West Germany, England and France have varied styles of government, none of whicb resulted in an unem­ployment situation any more favor-' able than that of the United States. In fact, according to Irving Kristol, "we are experiencing a world-wide reces­sion and there isn't a government on the face of this earth, of whatever ideological complexion, that is doing any better than we are." In other words, the high unemployment rate for which many liberals blame Rea­ganomics, is absolutely no fault of Reagonomics. To blame such a condi­tion on one single government, ignor­ing all external conditions, is compar­able to blaming a person for contract­ing the Black Plague during an epidemk; it is unjustified.

Upon examining Supply-Side, one can conclude that the concept is no experim~nt, and furthermore, it in no way subordinates the poor while aid­ing the wealthy. In addition, one should realize that Reaganomics is a comparative success to other nations in preventing unemployment.

.--------------------------. • I would like more information about the Michigan • ; Revie-,# and want to know how I can support it. I • • • I am impressed with the alternative direction which • • the Michigan Review will provide on college cam- • ; puses. You have my support. •

• I • __ $10.00 ____ $20.00 __ $50.00 ~$100.00. • • • Comments (Other)------~---------------- I · ~ L .. -... _· .. _______ · .. _____ ... -..... -......

The M1cbigu Review December, 1982

Challenging the Left1s

Cherished Idols EMIL ARCA

Despite the ic.onoclastic effects of recent conservative critiques, lib­erals, and leftists generally, have managed to hold, on to a number of their cherished assumptions. Among the most dear of these to younger leftists is their success in completely identifying rock songs and musicians (especially those of leading English bands) with the left's social-political outlook.

No one should bother to deny the obvious link between the two, but a closer look at the songs and com­ments of the most creative and impor­tant of these groups -I've chosen The Beatles, The' Who, The Kinks, The Clash, and The Jam - renders a more complex picture. While conservatives could never claim them as their own, these writers and musicians often have views more critical of the left's priorities than the left's Smug Cool­ness would let on.

Making a lot of money, and trying to keep some of it, has wonderfully focused the attention of some rockers on the ways of government. In "Tax­man" (1966), George Harrison adopts the confident and threatening voice of a taxman who tells his listeners not to ask what he needs the money for (he cynically suggests he could tax anything - the heat, your feet), and to be grateful to have five percent of his income left over after taxes. Other Beatie voices chime in 'Taxman, Mr. Wilson" and "Taxman, Mr. Heath," as if to remind us that the Labor and Conservative Parties used to compete with each other (until 1979 anyway) over which party could best tax and spend to support a growing welfare state.

A few years ago, Roger Daltrey of - The Who instinctively grasped the

essence of what today would be called supply-side economi.cs: "I think you should pay the people of welfare enough to live. What is such a shame is that people go to work and can't really earn much more beca'use it's taken away in tax ... and the tax is all wasted on more government to dish out less welfare," Daltrey explained the effects of marginal rates more succinctly than George Gilder did in Wealth and Poverty: "Just suppose I invest money, whatever that money makes as investment income I'm pay­ing about ninety-eight percent tax on it. And that's the only way England's

going to become great, by people investing in England." Daltrey then noted that actually giving needy peo­ple money would be much cheaper than setting up endless government agencies to spend it for them or tell them how to (a proposal advocated, incidentally, by such conservative economists as Milton Friedman and Thomas Sowell): "I don't mind paying that amount of tax - it's what they do with it I don't like. If I thought it would go to old age pensioners to increase their pension, but it doesn't. Every time they put up taxes it's always just another department for this or another for that." (Of course, the left would never dream of dis­mantling the welfare state, although a recent Heritage Foundation study found that it would take $10 1.8 bil­lion to raise every American above the poverty line, whereas government agencies at all levels now spend $403.5 billion .on various· types of welfare and income security pro­grams, with many Americans still below the poverty line.) Back to Dal­trey: ''I'd certainly lower taxes, defi­nitely I think it is the .main problem in this country - overtaxed and over­governed."

Daltrey's chief co-conspirator in The Who, Pete Townshend, was once asked if the government at least acknowledged the fact that they had stayed in England. Townshend be­came angry: "Cmon, let's get our stupid priorities right for once. Bu­reaucrats, they're our servants ... we acknowledge them ... they're at our behest. We vote them in." Bureau­crats and those who depend on them for power think differently: Before taxes could become much ur a ptG0-lem to him, the. young musician in Ray Davies's "Get Back in Line" P971) had to confront that "union man who's got such a hold over me/He's the man who decides if I live or I die, if I starve or I eat."

In The Kinks' "Catch Me Now I'm Falling" (1979), Ray Davies depicts a Captain America who calls on citi­zens from all over the world without receiving a second glance. Captain America reminds them that he bailed them out when they were on their knees, fed them, never denied them, guided them, stood by them through

See IDOLS, page 13

Page 9

-

.. "----~---

-

!%C~.

WARFARE

Kampuchean Cambodian refugees in Thailand and later, in 1979, from Afghan refugees in Pakistan. In most cases, the medical symptoms de­scribed were essentially the same: skin lesions, coughing and vomiting great quantities of blood, seeping of blood from body orifices, dizziness, convulsions and eventually dealth.

. The limited medical knowledge of the refugees coupled with their geo­graphical and cultural differences dis­credited any claims that such state­ments were fabricated in opposition to the local regime.

In the ABC News special, aPathet Lao pilot who defected to Thailand admitted having flown in 200 mis­sions involving chemical attacks against Hmong Villagers. He too made reference to a "heavy yellow cloud of smoke."

In Afghanistan, numerous eyewit­ness accounts from Afghan freedom fighters, journalists and doctors who have treated survivors of chemical at­tacks have been documented. Physi­cal evidence has been difficult to ob­tain in this country yet human intelli­gence reports as well as testimony from Afghan-army defectors strongly suggest the use of chemical weapons, including "Yellow Rain, II by the So­viets. One.Afghan army defector ad­mi~ted that the army was using nerve gas against freedom fighters. Berne DeBruin, a Dutch journalist, recorded exclusive photographs and an 8mm film of a gas attack by Soviet helicopters in Afghanistan. He de­scribed the attack to ABC News Closeup: "In the morning we were near the village of Faizabad. And then about 9:00 the helicopters came and attacked the village. Dropped _ a bomb. We were running, we heard explosions, looked back, saw yellow cloud."

Intelligence sources also say that ~ellitephotographs of Soviet posi­tions in Afghanistan show Russian soldiers undergoing decontamina­tion. Decontaminating units, capable of cleaning tanks and other equip­ment of chemical agents, as well as detoxification chambers for con-. taminated soliders have also been photographed.

In 1979, a U.S. medical team was sent to Thailand to verify rumors of chemical warfare in. Laos andKaD:l~ puchea. Dr.' Charles Lewis, the head of the medical team and chief of der­matology at the Brooke Army Medi­cal Center in San Antonio, Texas, conducted extensive interviews with refugees who had witnessed the at­tacks of "Yellow Rain." He concluded

Page 10

that two or three chemicals were being used causing the burns and 'convulsions, and one of which was unknown agent that produced the hemorrhaging.

The active lethal agent in "Yellow Rain" had eluded government scien­tists for some time because they had been looking for known chemical warfare substances. Finally, a novel compound composed of three trico­thecene mycotoxins was found to be the primary lethal agent in "Yellow Rain". The substances were identified as nivalenol, deoxynivalenol and T2 toxin. Although the actions of these

" ... about 9:00 the helicopters came and attacked the village. Dropped a bomb. We were running, we heard ex­plosions, looked back, saw yellow cloud. II

mycotoxins are still being investigat­ed, they apparently destroy the cells of bone marrow, lymph nodes, and organs, rupture blood vessels and dis­rupt the blood's ability to clot. The gruesome result is that the victim chokes to death on his own blood as a result of a massive internal hemor­rhage. In fact, as ABC News found out, these mycotoxins, when force: fed to animals produce all the identi­cal poisoning symptoms of "Yellow Rain."

Last May, the State Department re­leased convincing evidence that trico­thecene mycotoxin poisoning was the result of the "Yellow Rain" attacks. In addition to collecting and analyzing m()re samples of the chemical agent, blood and urine. samples from four victims of a Vietnamese chemical at­tack in Kampuchea were also ana­lyzed and were found to contain Tz toxin. Blood samples from age and background-matched controls who had not been exposed to the "Yellow Rain" contained no Tz Toxin or other tricothecenes.

There is no doubt that the produc­tion of these large amounts of myco­toxins are taking place in the Soviet Union. Although Indochina has had chemical warfare units for sometime, it has no large-scale biological facili­ties needed to mass produce these deadly toxins.

Furthermore, the tricothecene my­cotoxins are produced from a fusar­ium fungus that thrives on grain ex­posed to cO,l,d,~~t Iclimates and exists in many parts of the USSR. In 1944, thousands of Soviet citizens died after injesting food containing contami­nated grain. It was later established that the fusarium fungus .was grow­ing on the grain and had produced lethal mycotoxins.

Since the 1930s, the Soviet Union has conducted extensive research on tricothecene mycotoxins and the hemorrhaging that they cause. Soviet scientific literature contains over fifty articles on tricothecenes nearly half of which are related to the ()ptimum conditions necessary for its biosyn­thesis-an indication that the Kremlin has been studying these toxins for reasons beyond scientific interest or agricultund needs.

Still, certain types of chemical warfare being used in Afghanistan re­main unknown. Afghan freedom fighters were found lying in firing positions with their hands frozen on their rifles indicating that the lethal chemical or toxin was extremely fast acting and undetectable by human senses.

The US government presented its evidence to the UN General Assem­bly in 1981 and despite Soviet at­tempts to block its formation, an im­partial UN commision was created to investigate the charges. Moscow, in a self-incriminating manner, prohib­ited the UN team from entering Laos, Kampuchea, Vietnam and Afghan­istan. The team did however travel to Thailand but lacking sufficient time and resources (even unable to analyze a sample of Yellow Rain), it returned home unable to verify or refute the allegations. They voted to extend the investigations another year again overriding Soviet objections.

Part of the problem has been ironic fact that the overseer for the commis­ion is Viacheslov Ustinov, a Soviet of­ficial who has repeatedly used tactics to stall and end the investigations.

After traveling to Afghan refugee camps in Pakistan last February the UN team was able to obtain eyewit­ness testimony, medical reports and physical evidence of Russian chemi­cal warfare. The 36-page report which was kept from the public for some­time until it was finally leaked to the Wall Street Journal Uune 7, 1982). Excerpts published from the tran­script not only reveal the use of "Yellow Rain" in Afghanistan but also other forms of biological weapons.

The UN has been very lethargic in analyzing the physical and testimo­nial evidence obtained and has yet to denounce Moscow for the use of chemical warfare. ...

CONSERVATISM ...

in terms of influence, with the events in Moscow and Berlin. Russell Kirk's book was the beginning of the long decline of the left-liberal ascendancy which had gripped American cultural and intellectual life since the turn of the century.

It is important to realize that the modern American conservative movement began with a book, and that the first conservatives were not politicans but intellectuals. In No­vember 1955 the first number of Bill Buckley's NATIONAL REVIEW ap­peared. Again; it was the work of in­tellectuals and not of politicians. In those days Washington and the seats of power see~ed very far away from the editorial and academic redoubts of that earnest and embattled little band of conservatives.

Liberal intellectuals who had be­come minimally aware of the conser­vative insurgence were scornful, ma­lignant, even hateful in the tone they adopted toward it. Dwight Mac­donald published an article in Com­mentary (the pre-Podhoretz Commen­tary) in April 1956, five months after the birth of NATIONAL REVIEW.

entitled "Scrambled Eggheads on the Right." The tone of Macdonald's arti­cle was not unlike that of his title. He denounced the intellectuals and academicians who wrote for NATION·

AL REVIEW as obscure, eccentric, "in­tellectually underpriviledged" pro­vincials. The journal was, Macdonald sCQrnfully said, "the voice of the lumpen-bourgeoisie."

It is important to ask how the ideas of such a small band of despised intel­lectuals could, in the course of three decades, comes to domi~te the polit­ical scene. Many factors help to ex­plain this transformation of American political and cultural life, and I shall do no more than adumbrate the im­pact of ideas, their locus in men and institutions, and the way in which they found publlic resonance.

Political revolutions do not begin at political conventions and party cau­cuses, but as ideas in the minds of a few individuals. Politics is epiphe­nomenal and the world of the spirit is determinative. That is why John Maynard Keynes wrote in the much­quoted final paragraph of The General Theory:

The ideas of economists and politi­cal philosophers, both when they are right and when they are wrong, are more powerful then is common­ly understood. Indeed the world is ruled by little else. Practical men, who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual in­fluences, are usually the slaves of some defunct economist Madmen in authority, who hear voices in the air, are distilling their frenzy from some academic scribbler of a few years back. I am sure that the power

CONTINUED

TIle MleIdpJI Review Oeoember,1982

4<4";-{'Wten.l:<hW_I.l,"<'"

.~~

I ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

of vested interests is vastly exag­gerated compared with the gradual encroachment of ideas. Not, indeed, immediately, but after a certain in­terval: for in the field of economic and political philosophy there are not many who are influenced by new theories after they are 25 or thirty years of age, so that the ideas which civil servants and politicians and even agitators apply to current events are not likely to be the newest. But, soon or late, it is ideas, not vested interests, which are dangerous for good or evil.

It is important to und~rstand that from the outset the conservative movement has been, not a unitary movement, but an ideological al-

. Hance of three different sets of ideas. They are all, to be sure, united by their hostility to the left-liberal estab­lishment, but their opposition to the status quo, statism, socialism, welfar­ism, and a value-free society takes different forms and different distri­butions of intensity.

Like the liberal political establish­ment which it is replacing, the con­servative movement is a coalition of minorities, and both its strength and its vulnerability derive from this fact. It will be successful as a political movement only so long as its leader­ship is able to compromise on impor­tant differences and contain the ten­sion of conflict.

But what are the chief constituent elements in this new ideological coalition?

The first of these groups is the anti­Communists, anti-Soviet "cold war­riors." The cold war was not the crea­tion of the anti-Communist Right; Harry Truman and Dean Acheson were liberals in good standing, and it was they who initiated the American opposition to Soviet expansion. Nonetheless, it was the anti-Soviet Right that provided an articulate and philosophically defensible position from which to challenge Soviet ex­pansionism - which it was able to do not- least because so many of its members were former Communists.

Whittaker Chambers paved the way with the publication, in 1952, of Witness, an autobiographical account of Chambers's break with Com­munism and modernity. This book will, I am convinced, become one of the great historical documents of the twentieth century. Frank Meyer, former Rhodes scholar and Commun­ist Party ort,anizer, was, until his death in 1972, one of the most impor­tant conservative intellectuals in the NATIONAL REVIEW group. No small part of his influence was due to his lively, engaging, and combative per­sonality, and to his ability to identify and attract young talent to the move­ment.

James Burnham, who had broken with the Trotskyist faction _ of the

TIle MJdUpa Review December. 1982

Communist movement, was also a pivotal figure in the NATIONAL REVIEW

circle. Although personally more dis­tant than the engaging Frank Meyer, he was intellectually more powerful. This is not toally surprising: the Trot­skyi,st fattion was the brain trust of the Communist movement, and much of the vigor of the early conser­vative movement and of present-day neoconservatism derives from ex­Trotskyist converts. (Daniel Bell is good example, and I expect to hear any day that Irving Howe has made the announcement of his conversion.) One ought to recall that Irving Kristol and his wife, Gertrude Himmelfarb, were leading figures in the Trotskyist Club at the University of Chicago,

In the history of the conservative movement, Willia:m S. (Willi) Schlamm, former German Commun­ist and editor of the Wiener Weltbuhne, emerges as a key figure behind the scenes. As editorial assist­ant to Henry Luce at Time, Life, and Fortune he exerted a powerful influ- . ence upon the formation of American publi<; opinion. But he also knew the men who could be -recruited into the conservative movement, and he had an uncanny sense of the issues which would confront that movement.

To be sure there were other im­portant traditions represented in the anti-Communist branch of the con­servative movement of the 1950s. Figures such as Gerhart Niemeyer and Stefan Possony had never made the pilgrimage to Moscow,' and William Henry Chamberlin, like many others who had an intimate knowledge of the Soviet Union, had very little love for it.

One thing, though, that all these in­tellectuals inside and outside the academy had in common was that, while insisting on the importance of armed resistance to Communist im­perialism, they believed very strong­ly that the final defeat of Commun­ism would take place in the minds and hearts of men ra,ther than on the field of battle. They, as a group, had then and have now no illu~ion that the battle can be won solely through

. the accumulation of military power by the West.

This conviction gave them a point of contact with the second large bloc within the conservative movement, the cultural conservatives. The cul­tural conservatives were responding to changes taking place in American society. Pre-Vatican II American Ca­tholicism was particularly important in providing leadership and recruits t'O this movement. (In this, American Catholicism anticipated by twenty years the development of conserva­tism within Evangelical Prot­estantism and the growth of the Moral Majority.)

The cultural conservatives were elitist, patriarchal, hierarchical, and, in important respects, anti-capitalis­tic - or, more accurately, "pre-capital­istic" - in their cultural, social, and political theory. They were concern­ed with boundaries, standards, and excellence. They were frankly intol­erant and anti-permissive. They as­serted that culture was produced by elites and destroyed by "the masses." They preferred private to public edu­cation. They scorned the goal of a se-

. cularist society and believed that reli­gion and a civic morality rooted in re­ligious values were essential to the survival of the Republic. They believed that the destruction of boundaries and limits and the decay of standards would lean to the decline of the Republic. The chief and most articulate spokesman of the cultural conservatives was, and is, Russefl Kirk. Their most thoughtful and original thinker was Richard M. Weaver, professor, until his death, at the University of Chicago. Their cultural heroes might be - indeed, often were - 'of the "modernist" Right rather than the avant-garde Left.

An important sub-group of this movement is the followers of Leo Strauss. Strauss was one of the most distinguished German-Jewish emi­gres to come to the United States in flight from Hitler. For more than a generation he trained graduate stu­dents in political theory at the Uni­versity of Chicago. His knowledge was exhaustive and his standards de­manding, and his lifestyle permitted his students to glimpse what it meant to devote one's life to study.

In my opinion it is this second broad group-the cultural conserva­tives-which is the most authentical­ly conservative and will, in the long run, have the most profound influ: ence on our society. Though some­times it seems bent on conserving the form rather than the spirit of past cultural achievements, it presents an important alternative to the some­times mindless modernist secular humanism of our time.

Not- entirely coincidentally, the cultural conservatives have found themselves most frequently in con­flict with the values of the third bloc within the conservative movement, the economists. While the cultural conservatives, moving in the political tradition of Edmund Burke, believed that the state performs a positive role within the society, the econo­mists-whether Austrian, English neoclassical, or native American, like Frank Knight at the University of Chicago- believed that state inter­vention in the life of society, especial­ly in economic matt~rs, is nearly always d~structive. Consequently the economics of the marketplace have

frequently had important cultural and political corollaries: it is only a small step from market economics to libertarianism.

In many respects the economists have been the most coherent group within the conservative movement. Moreover, they have had more im­mediate access to patronage, academ­ic positions, and government influ­ence than any other group. While Hayek and von Mises occupied the limelight, the Chicago school and its farm teams at UCLA and the Univer­sity of Virginia produced graduate students who, in time, changed the complexion of American economic thought and finally transformed gov­ernment policy. It would be a mis­take to characterize this group as simply "anti-Keynesian" or to describe it as neo-liberal. It is a much more sophisticated and complicated move­ment that these designations suggest. These economists are scholars who have dared to think the unthinkable, who have defied the conventional wisdom, and who, even when they have been wrong, have been bril­liantly wrong. It is not surprising then that many of them have come to be­lieve that all human behavior can be expained in economic terms and that their particular economic insight is a kind of philosophers' stone which will unlock the last mysteries of the universe.

The economists and their libertar­ian allies have therefore found them­selves in conflict with both the anti­Communist Right and the cultural conservatives. The economist have generally he~d that defense expen­ditures fuel the growth of statism; that war is the real father of the om­nicompetent or the world-be on­micompetent state. As Peter Drucker so aptly put it, "the only thing the modern state has proved its compet­ence in achieving is in inflating the currency and waging war." From the vantage point of the economists the answer to Communism and statism is the market. They tend to forget that men do not live by bread alone and that modern Europeans have become Cmmunists oftener as a consequence of metaphysical anxiety than material deprivation. Cultural conservatives often find the narrow economic vi­sion of second-generation Amerioon economists, in contrast to their great European mentors (men such as Heyek and von Mises, William Fellner, Gottfried Haberler, and Fritz Machlup-all men of deep culture), to be philistine, narrow, instrumental, and without any trace of broad humanistic concerns.

CONTINUED Page 15

Page 11

-

....

j"

Looking Back .................................................................................... .

all who are willing to look. The Berlin Wall, for example, was not erected to keep the people in West Germany's liberal economy from escaping to East Germany's state-organized eco­nomic system.

Now this liberal philosophy was, of course, the American historical tradi­tion. It was the original philosophical underpinning of our social, political, and economic institutions. It saw pro­gress as something to be achieved in a free (i.e., liberal) system where per­formance rather than political pull or family would be the route to-success.

The stream of philosophical liber-ialism, however, has had another trib­utary. This one traces its head waters to such men as Voltaire, Condorcet, Rousseau, and Descartes among others. These men also were not happy with things as they were, but they believed that pure reason by deliberate design could layout the ideal specific patterns or blueprints of the good society. It was democratic in concept, in the sense that the govern­ment should be democratically cho­sen. This government should then use its power to achieve or imple­ment what pure reason would de­clare to be Good. The lead.ers of the French Revolution were greatly influ­enced by this thinking. In 1774 the Committee of Public Safety declared: "You must entirely refashion a people whom you wish to make free, destroy its prejudices, alter its habits, limit its necessities, root up its vices, purify its desires. I;

Now the theories of progress em­bedded in .these two philosophical traditions have major differences, and a few are worth some comments. For one thing they differ about the ends to be achieved. What we might call the British tradition (though we might more properly, in view of its "founding fathers," call it a Scottish tradition) saw the good society or the good economy emerging spontane­ously through the expression of indiv­idual preferences and creativity with­in the framework of a government of limited scope and power. The con­tinental tradition, as we have men­tioned, saw the good life in terms of explicit designs and blueprints, with the power of government used to achieve them. The good life would then be the collection of these explicit social or national objeC,tives, and pro­grams, and patterns of living, not the cumulative results of spontaneous creativity whose precise patterns in­evitably could not be specified in ad­vance.

Page 12

A second fundamental difference is that while the two tradition of liberal­ism both subscribe to the concept of political democracy, they differ sharply about the proper scope of government. The British tradition emphasized government of limited s(i:ope while the French or continental tradition would see no particular limit to the scope of government if it is "democratic." It is not surprising that the latter has led almost inevitably to a diminution in personal freedom. The operating principle of majority rule in government does tend to mean in many areas of life that the minority also will have what the majority want. That is presumably a better principle than that all must accept what only a minority wants (as in a monarchy or dictatorship) .

This majority rule is, however, vastly less responsive to the diverse wants and preferences of people than a system that enables each person more nearly to devote his life to the ends that to him seem good. This is precisely what the liberal economic and political system in the basic sense can do. One person can have a Cadil­lac while another prefers a Plymouth and the neighbor across the street, not much interested in cars at all, spends his money on hi-fi equipment. In a market system we see some fam­ilies drive Chevrolets, others Fords, still others Gremlins qr Audies or Datsuns or one of a wide array of other choices. Metaphorically speak­ing, in a system organized according to the alternative continental tradi­tion of liberalism, we ·would all drive· Ghevrolets; moreover, this would be a "democratic" decision because Chevrolet would receive the most votes in the referendum on "our national automobile purpose."

The alternative or continentalliber­al tradition will, however, tend in fact toward requiring for all what only the minority want. Even in a democratic government properly el­ected by majority vote, its actions will tend to be the aggregate of what strongly-focused and highly vocal in­terest groups want, and this can be and often is at substantial variance from th~ welfare of the inchoate and unfocused majority. The Jones Act, requiring that cargoes between U.S. port citJes be carried in American ships, imposes unnecessary costs on consumers. The I.C.C. has self­evidently ruined the railroad industry and put 50 percent more trucks on highways than are needed to haul the

"'

nation's truck cargos. The Davis­Bacon Act makes construction costs unnecessarily high. All of these are inimical to the interests of people generally, but they are actions taken by democratically-elected govern­ments in response to pressures from strongly-focused interest groups for whom these items are intensely im- "' portant, and they are not apt to be changed. Indeed, it is doubtful if in the Congress the pertinent commit­tees would even be willing to hold a hearing on the subject of repealing the Jones Act or the Davis-Bacon Act or abolishing the I.C.C.

Enlarging the proportion of eco­nomic activity in the public sector in­evitably, therefore, tends toward a society forced to organize into pres­sure groups that crunch and grind against each other. And the thing that gets pulverized is the general interest of citizens who want to live their lives in their own way and not as faceless members of a pressure group to which they have surrendered their individuality.

The open system provides a logical process for achieving continuing dis­establishmentarianism.

Finally, the two traditions do carry with them different implications about ends and means. The continen­tal tradition, placing more emphasis on specified end results, does have certain obvious advantages. It seems to sound more purposeful. It lends it­self to stirring rhetoric about "organ­izing ourselves for a great national purpose" (being silent about whose concept of purpose is great). The nation would then "control and direct its destiny" Uhat destiny being the one preferred by those who decide on the blueprints). We would not be subject­ing ourselves tol/haphazard results through blind chance." (These are pejorative terms for what the

inchoate majority of people prefer.) Stripped of its beguiling rhetoric,

this so-called continental philosophy cannot proceed far without starting to involve some unexpected and even uncomfortable implications. For one thing it leads to a blueprinting of the ends of life that turns out to be re­strictive and simplistic. It sees the blueprint for an elegant urban life, for example, to be people transported via mass transit tB.long corridors of high density. In that· way "urban sprawl" and "highway congestion" are eliminated .. ahd after all aren't they bad? Isn't it obvious that a ton of hu­manity can be transported more eco­nomically if containerized in mass transit vehicles? (The answer is that it is another "obvious· but by no means necessarily correct assumption.) And with high-density living more of the earth's surface could remain in mea­dows, and isn't that Good?

Those representing the position of fundamental liberalism, on the other hand, take a more complex view of these matters. Life is more than a few square feet of domicile, .or being transported to and from work "eco­nomically." The automobile gives transportation but it gives something else much more important - freedom for the individual as a person. And people prefer those homes contemp­tuously called ·urban'sprawl" for rea­sons far more fundamental than to have places for bed and board that fit into some pre-determined blueprint about the way planet should look. This alternative or continental philos­ophy of liberaliSDl cannot be carried far before it gets uncomfortably close to the ends justifying th~ means.

The basic British-American liberal tradition does not proclaim in ad­vance the explicit design for the good life, the end, but it does emphasize the right process for achieving the life of self-fulfillment. Government, to repeat, should provide the frame­work within which, from the spon­taneous effects of individual creativ­ity and preferences, will emerge a pattern of life of a richness that could not have been blueprinted in ad­vance. It pins its faith on the emer­gence of the right end if the right means are used, and it is confident that the end results will contribute more to human welfare than govern­ment using its powers to achieve specific designs determined in some sense "at the top· to be good.

Reprinted h>' permission from author and source (journal of Neurosurgery; Dartmouth Medical

School)

TIle MidIIpa Rft:iew Oeoember. 1082

~~~--''''''''''''"'''''''- ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''~~'''''''''~''~' ''.~

'IDOLS all of their depressions and miseries, and now that he needs a helping hand, "your secretary says you've gone out of town." Davies probably had in mind America's European allies, whose selfishness knows no bounds.

Pete Townshend seemed to echo Davies when a Rolling Stone inter­vi~wer using all the usual left-wing rhetoric asked him why the Euro­peans should not "just forbid America to put any more missiles in Europe." Townshend showed little patience:

Now how can you do that? America is our ally. How can we forget what happened in the last two wars? Can we suddenly turn around and say, "Sorry, we don't need you anymore"? You know, people came all the way over from America on ships and got shot in the hundreds of thousands to save Europe. People have got too short a memory. A lot of people who are out doin' these disarmament par<Ji.les and things are two gener­ations away from that. They don't realize - particularly the German nuclear campaigners-that Europe is only there by the grace of God and America. I don't want to be too pas­sionate and patriotic about it, but I think so much shit is spoken about America and American politics. America is responsible for the free world and continues to be. I mean, however socialist I take myself to be, I also enjoy life as it is, you know? I enjoy living in the West. I was born here, and I like it the way it is. I don't mind if it changes slowly, and I'm not adverse to the idea of creeping s0-

cialism or creeping communism­but slow, slow, slow.

The leftist worldview of the most exciting band now working: The Clash, is well known. Yet even this band, revolutionary lyrics and all, can occasionally throw cold water on some young leftish' priorities. For one, there is that Clash T-shirt sported by Townshend in some publicity photos (and, incidentally, by John Cale's guitarist S. A. Nikides when Cale played at the Second Chance in Ann Arbor): "Rock Against Russia­Arms for the Afghan Rebels." Con­trast this stance with that of Betty England writing in the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament's ironically titled booklet, Why We Need Action Not Words: "The intervention in Af­ghanistan may well have been caused partly by the Soviet Union's fear of its growing encirclement. The fear can­not be called unreasonable .... " Even among those leftists more realistic or more honest than Ms. England, Af­ghanistan is a lacuna in their world­view, shoved into a black hole, so . that its implications about Soviet behavior need not be dealt with.

One wonders if the Betty Englands also feel that Poland is one of the countries threatening the Soviet Union and, if not, what lie they would con­coct to justify the Soviet role there. At

TIle ....... Re9iew December, 1982

The Clash concert at the Grand Cir­cus Theatre in Detroit, the screen behind the group displayed pictures of what would seem to be the group's favorite subject matter - riots and violence in Britain - and then, during "Know Your Rights" (1982). on came the face of Lech Walesa. Along with it were pictures of Polish society sepa­rated from a line of Zomo militiamen by a class contradiction the size of the Grand Canyon.

The classic rock song about revolu­tion, The Beatles' "Revolution" (1968), is practically Burkean, arguing against revolution and telling a revolutionary who wants to change the constitution to "free your mind instead." John Lennon, who wrote "Revolution," subsequently went through a radical period, then retired from music to be with his family, and before his death released a highly personal album and began to hint that his radicalism was something he picked up, chameleon­like, from his environment in the early seventies~

Paul McCartney, whose "Hey Jude" provided the A-side for "Revolution" and gave it. a huge audience, has publicly remained largely apolitical since the break-up of The Beatles and has become the most successful song­writer in history. Neverthe'less, his "Wildlife" (1972) can be read as a metaphor for what was happening to young radicals; in any case, in it he complained of "too much political nonsense in the air." Shortly there­after, he released "Give Ireland Back to the Irish" (1972) . These actions are not as contradictory as some critics seemed to think, for "Give Ireland Back to the Irish" is free of the "polit­ical nonsense" that characterized many products of the late sixties and early seventie.s. Unlike other songs on the same topic, most of which are only revolutionary chants, McCart­ney's sounds as if it actually hopes to persuade a reasonable Englishman. It

is written from a traditionalist per­spective, beginning by caIiing Great Britain "tremendous" and casting an Irish prisoner not as a revolutionary hero, but as a man who believes in God and country. The song was never­theless banned from the BBC.

Pete Townshend's relation to the radicals of the late sixties is more direct. When leftist radical Abbie Hoffman tried to use The Who's stage at the Woodstock festival, Town­shend used his guitar to club him off stage. Asked to look back on his actions this year, Townshend said he would probably do the same thing again: "I feel that the stage is a sacred platform. If you're taking respon­sibility for iCY()U have to be ~ure it's used for the right purpose . .. . In any case, I never agreed with the motives of the revolutionaries of that partic­ular time. I thought they were all potential 'superstars' who were trying to find another way of becoming big wheels." In another interview, Town­shend was even more caustic:

~

All those hippies wandering about thinking the world was going to be different from that day. As a cynical English arsehold I walked through it all and felt like spitting on the lot of them, and shaking them and trying to make them realize that nothing had changed and nothing was going

. to change. Not only that , what they thought was an alternative society was basically a field full of six foot deep mud and laced with LSD. If that was the world they wanted ·to live in, then fuck the lot of them. That self-d!!precation lasted a long time.

Townshend expressed his opposi­tion to the more serious Abbie Hoff­man's of the world in The Who's . .

classic 'Won't Get Fooled Again" (1971)- a song that the left consis­tently misunderstands. The closing line, "Meet th~ ' new boss, same as the old boss" can only make sense as an indication of Townshend's rejection

of New Left leaders. In his own words: "I wrote Won't Get Fooled Again' as a reaction to all that - 'Leave me out of it . I don't think your lot would be better than the other lot!'" He has also described it as an anti ­revolutionary song, for Townshend opposes the levelling qualities of all revolutions - the Russian, the Chinese, "even the necessary ones."

Townshend's distaste for these radi­cals spills over on to some more con­ventionally liberal figures. In "The Seeker" (1970), his angry young man meets a supportive liberal t~ right out of Tom Wolfe's "Mau-Mauing the Flak Catchers" (where Wolfe satirizes a party Leonard Bernstein gave for the Black Panthers): ' "As I ransack their homes, they want to shake my hand." As for the anti-nuclear power movement, Townshend confessed to Creem that, "I'm for nuclear power, but I haven't told anyone because I'm still hoping to make it with Jane Fonda like everybody dreams of doing who's involved in the No-Nuke Movement." And in The Who's "Cry If You Want" (1982), Townshend addresses some­one with "Rash commitments heavy raps and left wing spiel all compro­mised" who now knows "your leaders lied ." As he reviews this character's past, he asks, "Don't you want to hide your face/When going through your teenage books! And read the kind of crap you wrote! About 'Ban the Bomb' and city crooks."

As an alternative, Townshend has devoted himself to two means of change: meliorist causes and spirit­ualism. His r,leliorist side is con­cerned with constructive change, not radical change or violence:

But I suppose I think any violence stinks, and if you pin down any of these kids, you could actually get it across to them that neither their violence nor their outfits nor their ' stance is going to change anything in British society. But most of all , they're wrong anyway: there's nothing wrong with our society. It's perfectly all right as it is. The way all societies are is that some people get, and some people don 't.

In the same interviews in which Townshend makes such observations, he speaks of being even more polit­ically active, but with concrete re­sults in mind and within the structure of existing society. He marvels that thIS attitude is taken for granted in America where people are optimistic and work through the Constitution. With or without The Who, Town­shend does about one benefit a week · for causes such as Amnesty interna­tional, Rock for Jobs, Prince Charles' charitable foundation, Rock Against

See IDOLS, page 14

Plga13

~--~."'< ,

--

i

.....

IDOLS

Racism, and the U.N. and McCartney­organized Concerts for the People of Kampuchea. These benefits differ only in kind from normal Who con­certs, for while The Who was still touring they gave a substantial part of their earnings to charity.

. The other half of Townshend's means of change is his religious out­look. A guiding principle of Town­shend's spiritual thought, and a topic he frequently brings up, is the need for people to reform themselves from within. His path, as he might put it, was through his Eastern mentor, Mehr Baba. Townshend finds conso­lation that: "However big or small, you're always a channel and servant of God. Even if you're. a rat, you've got the hot line to God."

Earlier this year, Townshend ex­pressed his'worry that Paul Weller of The Jam was getting people excited without any construchve purpose. In its five years as a group (1977-1982), The Jam was always a study in con­tradictions. It came to dominate the English musical scene (to the extent that any group could dominate such a fragmented scene), fueling the mod revival, and topping most categories of the New Musical Express's reader polls for several years. Yet for a group of its stature, The Jam could be uneven, often brilliant, sometimes commonplace.

The Jam songs which have social­political implications reflect these diverse qualities. The closer Paul· Weller stays to describing every­day life, the better their songs are, whether it's describing youth culture in their first couple of albums, the ironic urban survey of "That's Enter­tainment"- (1980), or the powerfully and poignantly expressed details of life in a '"Town Called Malice" (1982), their best song. Weller can go beyond description to observations that are occasionally keen: In "'A' Bomb in Wardour Street" (1978) he describes scenes of violence and, in a very un­liberal voice, screams: "Rape and murder throughout the land,! and they tell me that you're' still a free man.lWell if this is freedom I don't understand/cause it seems like mad­ness to me."

However ~W eller can become unbearable when he talks about abstractions, as in "Trans-Global Express" (1982), your basic workers­of-the-world-unite anthem. When The Jam took to stages in England in 1977 dressed in conservative suits_ Weller used to declare/We mean it!" This sincerely has carried many Jam songs, but it has its obyerse side: As Townshend noted in an article on The Jam, they have no sense of humor. Weller's mod arrogance has little to temper it, in the sense that

Page 14

Townshend's anger was tempered by ,warmth and Davies's was by humor and light irony.

It had become obvious that Ray Davies's outlook was hostile to most of the values of the left at least as early as "The Village Green Preserv­ation Society" (1968). It was the title of an album on the same theme, lamenting a lost world and sounding like nothing quite so much as Oliver Goldsmith's late 18th century poem "The Deserted Village."

IJ • •• what they thought was an alternative society was basically a field full of six foot deep mud and laced with LSD. II

Davies's sadness is punctuated with humor, for among the things this society preserves are strawberry jam, Donald Duck, china cups, and vir­ginity. Indeed, the Davies repertoire of this period is full of stories of young women who leave their coun­try homes and are corrupted in the city. Although Davies often unleashed his wit on high society and urban characters, there is still something remarkable about a rock songwriter who paused to say he missed fresh air and Sunday school ("Village Green," 1968).

Davies then co-wrote the script for a British television drama, Arthur, and wrote the songs on The Kinks soundtrack, Arthur on The Decline and Fall of the British Empire (1969). Its . rather bleak perspective on contemp­orary British urban life was bright­ened a bit by the lead track, "Victoria, about which critic John Mendelsohn wrote:

... Ray, sounding as flatulently patriotic and boozy as anyone could have wished, yearns for a long­ago England in which morals were clearly defined, the wealthy eQuId be as ornery as they pleased and the poor, knowing that Her Majesty loved each and every one, willingly died for their country. In the process h€ mocks his own nostalgic impulses as well as working-class patriotism in general.

••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

Davies may have been somewhat ambivalent in "Victoria," but it prepared the way for the expression of more genuine conservative sentiments in the aforemention~d

"Catch Me Now I'm Falling" (1979) and Muswell Hillibillies (1972). Moreover, at the time, it didn't seem too odd when a picture of The Jam appeared in Rolling Stone in 1977 under the rubric-of punks who liked the monarchy. Weller's Romantic conservative impulses and his radical side are reconcila,ble if one notes the similar mixture of the English Romantics of the 19th century. Indeed, the back cover of Sound Affects (1980) sports lines from Shelley. The last two stanzas quoted are quintessentially Romantic con­servative: "Let a vast assembly be,! And with great solemnity'/Declare with measured words that yet Are, as God made ye, free ... /The Old Laws of England - they/Whose reverend heads with age are grey/Children of a wiser day;1 And whose solemn voice must be/Thine own echo­Liberty! .... "

On the same album's "Man in the Corner Shop," Weller describes scenes from a small shop: a worker is jealous of the shopkeeper, who in turn is jealous of the factory boss. Despite

. these material jealousies, society is united, but not in the way that many trendy listeners might expect: "Go to -church do the people from the areal All shapes and classes sit and pray together/For here they are all one/For God created all men equaL"

If Ray Davies's connection to 'Romanticism is strongly suggested by his early work, a line like "What has become of the green pleasantfields of Jerusalem?" in "20th Century Man" (1972) makes it obvious. (The allusion is to a poem by William Blake and a well-known English hymn.) DavieS's 20th century is an age of insanity, aggravation, paranoid schizophrenia, and disillusionment. Indeed, it sounds like something out of Nordau's fin-de­siecle catalog of culjllral neuroses, Degeneration. Technology has yielded napalm, hydrogen bombs, and bio­logical warfare. And if that sounds conventional in certain circles, Davies also says that he doesn't want "to be shot down by some trigger happy peace nut." He defiantly sings: "You keep all your smart modern writers," as he prefers Shakespeare, and says the same about modern painters, pre­ferring Rembrandt and Titian. Davies concludes: "I was born in a welfare state/No farther up per se/Controlled by civil servants/And people dressed in gray/Got no privacy, got no liberty/ Cause the twentieth century people took it all away from me."

Likewise, in "Muswell Hillbilly" (l972), Davies yearns for the inde­pendence represented by American hillbillies, although he later admits he has never seen their states - M uswell Hill is, in fact, a London neighbor­hood. Back from his dreams, Davies sings: "They're putting us in identical little boxes/No character, just uni­formityiThey're trying to build a com­puterized community." The last line is telling, for, as Tom Wolfe reminds us in From Bauhaus to Our House, those "identical little boxes" were originally designed by socialist architects whose ideas on planning a new society now seem contemptuous of the people who had to live in such monstrosities.

In his essay "The Architecture of Servitude and Boredom" (Modern Age, Spring 1982), Russell Kirk writes: "Talking vaguely of egalitarianism and an international style, the 're­newers' of our cities have been crea­ting vistas of boredom." Kirk suggests some principles of reform to avoid these planners' mistakes. Note how similar Paul Weller's analysis is in The jam's "The Planner's Dream Goes Wrong" (1982), as he describes these planners' ideas and the reality of what happened:

Kirk: " ... the architecture of a city and a countryside ought to be adapted to the humane scale." Weller: "the dream life luxury living was a pleasant No. 10 whim,/But somewhere down the lines of pro· duction/They left out human beings."

Kirk: " ... the community called a city must nurture roots, not hack through them." Weller: "They were going to build new communities/It was going to be pie in the sky-/But the piss stench in the hallways and broken down lifts/Say the planners dream went wrong."

Kirk: " ... civic restoration must be founded upon the long·established customs, habits, and political insti­tutions of a community." Weller: "And the public school boy computors - keep spewing out our future-/The house in the country designs the 14th floor."

As thi_s article demonstrated, it is not an anomaly for a leading rock songwriter to occasionally have the same point of view as the tradition­alist author of The Conservative Mind.

TIle MicldpIl Review December, 1982

~

"",' k

~

.-"

IDOLS

Racism, and the U.N. and McCartney­organized Concerts for the People of Kampuchea. These benefits differ only in kind from normal Who con­certs, for while The Who was still touring they gave a substantial part of their earnings to charity.

. The other half of Townshend's means of change is his religious out­look. A guiding principle of Town­shend's spiritual thought, and a topic he frequently brings up, is the need for people to reform themselyes from within. His path, as he might put it, was through his Eastern mentor, Mehr Baba. Townshend finds conso­lation that: "However big or small, you're always a channel and servant of God. Even if you're a rat, you've got the hotline to God."

Earlier this year, Townshend ex­pressed his worry that Paul Weller of The Jam was getting people excited without any constructi-ve purpose. In its five years as a group (1977-1982), The Jam was always a study in con­tradictions. It came to dominate the English musical scene (to the extent that any group could dominate such a fragmented scene)" fueling the mod revival, and topping most categories of the New Musical Express's reader polls for several years. Yet for a group of its stature, The Jam could be uneven, often brilliant, sometimes commonplace.

The Jam songs which have social­political implications reflect these diverse qualities. The closer Paul· Weller stays to describing every­day life, the better their songs are, whether it's describing youth culture in their first couple of albums, the ironic urban survey of "That's Enter­tainment". (1980), or the powerfully and poignantly expressed details of life in a "Town Called Malice" (1982), their best song. Weller can go beyond description to observations that are occasionally keen: In "'A' Bomb in Wardour Street" (1978) he describes scenes of violence and, in a very un­liberal voice, screams: "Rape and murder throughout the land,land they tell me that you're' still a free man.lWell if this is freedom I don't understandl cause it seems like mad­ness to me." However~ . Weller can become

unbearable when he talks about abstractions, as in "Trans-Global Express" (1982), your basic workers­of-the-world-unite anthem. When The Jam tOOK to stages in England in 1977 dressed in conservative suits_ Weller used to declare/We mean itt" This sincerely has carried many Jam songs, but it has its obyerse side: As Townshend noted in an article on The Jam, they have no sense of humor. Weller's mod arrogance has little to temper it, in the sense that

Page 14

Townshend's anger was tempered by ,warmth and Davies's was by humor and light irony.

It had become obvious that Ray Davies's outlook was hostile to most of the values of the left at least as early as "The Village Green Preserv­ation Society" (1968). It was the title of an album on the same theme, lamenting a lost world and sounding like nothing quite so much as Oliver Goldsmith's late 18th century poem "The Deserted Village."

Ii • •• what they thought was an alternative society was basically a field full of six foot deep mud and laced with LSD. 1/

Davies's sadness is punctuated with humor, for among the things this society preserves are strawberry jam, Donald Duck, china cups, and vir­ginity. Indeed, the Davies repertoire of this period is full of stories of young women who leave their coun­try homes and are corrupted in the city. Although Davies often unleashed his wit on high society and urban characters, there is still something remarkable about a rock songwriter who paused to say he missed fresh air and Sunday school ("Village Green," 1968).

Davies then co-wrote the script for a British television drama, Arthur, and wrote the songs on The Kinks soundtrack, Arthur on The Decline and Fall of the British Empire (1969). Its ' rather bleak perspective on contemp­orary British urban life was bright­ened a bit by the lead track, "Victoria, about which critic John Mendelsohn wrote:

, .. Ray, sounding as flatulently patriotic and boozy as anyone could have wished, yearns for a long­ago England in which morals were clearly defined, the wealthy could be as ornery as they pleased and the poor, knowing that Her Majesty loved each and every one, willingly died for their country. In the process he mocks his own nostalgic impulses as well as working-class patriotism in general.

••• •••••••••••••••••••••••• 4

Davies may have been somewhat ambivalent in "Victoria," but it prepared the way for the expression of more genuine conservative sentiments in the aforemention.ed "Catch Me Now I'm Falling" (1979) and Muswell Hillibillies (1972). Moreover, at the time, it didn't seem too odd when a picture of The Jam appeared in Rolling Stone in 1977 under the rubric-of punks who liked the monarchy. Weller's Romantic conservative impulses and his radical side are reconcil~ble if one notes the similar mixture of the English Romantics of the 19th century. Indeed, the back cover of Sound Affects (1980) sports lines from Shelley. The last two stanzas quoted are quintessentially Romantic con­servative: "Let a vast assembly be,! And with great solemnity.lDeclare with measured words that yel Are, as God made ye, free .. . /The Old Laws of England - they/Whose reverend heads with age are grey/Children of a wiser day;/ And whose solemn voice must be/Thine own echo­Liberty! .... "

On the same album's "Man in the Corner Shop," Weller describes scenes from a small shop: a worker is jealous of the shopkeeper, who in turn is jealous of the factory boss. Despite

,these material jealousies, society is united, but not in the way that many trendy listeners might expect: "Go to -church do the people from the areal All shapes and classes sit and pray together/For here they are all one/For God created all men equal."

If Ray Davies's connection to 'Romanticism is strongly suggested by his early work, a Hne like "What has become of the green pleasant fields of Jerusalem?" in "20th Century Man" (1972) makes it obvious. (The allusion is to a poem by William Blake and a well-known English hymn.) Davies's 20th century is an age of insanity, aggravation, paranoid schizophrenia, and disillusionment. Indeed, it sounds like something out of Nordau's fin-de­siecle catalog of cultllrai neuroses, Degeneration. Technology has yielded napalm, hydrogen bombs, and bio­logical warfare. And if that sounds conventional in certain circles, Davies also says that he doesn't want "to be shot down by some trigger happy peace nut." He defiantly sings: ''You keep all your smart modern writers," as he prefers Shakespeare, and says the same about modern painters, pre­ferring Rembrandt and Titian. Davies concludes: "I was born in a welfare state/No farther up per se/Controlled by civil servants/And people dressed in gray/Got no privacy, got no liberty/ Cause the twentieth century people took it all away from me."

Likewise, in "Muswell Hillbilly" (1972), Davies yearns for the inde­pendence represented by American hillbillies, although he later admits he has never seen their states - M uswell Hill is, in fact, a London neighbor­hood. Back from his dreams, Davies sings: "They're putting us in identical little boxes/No character, just uni­formity/They're trying to build a com­puterized community." The last line is telling, for, as Tom Wolfe reminds us in From Bauhaus to Our House, those "identical little boxes" were originally designed by socialist architects whose ideas on planning a new society now seem contemptuous of the people who had to live in such monstrosities.

In his essay "The Architecture of Servitude and Boredom" (Modern Age, Spring 1982). Russell Kirk writes: "Talking vaguely of egalitarianism and an international style, the 're­newers' of our cities have been crea~ ting vistas of boredom." Kirk suggests some principles of reform to avoid these planners' mistakes. Note how similar Paul Weller's analysis is in The Jam's "The Planner's Dream Goes Wrong' (1982), as he describes these planners' ideas and the reality of what happened:

Kirk: U, • ,the architecture of a city and a countryside ought to be adapted to the humane scale," Weller: "the dream life lUXUry living was a pleasant No. 10 whim,lBut somewhere down the lines of pro­duction/They left out human beings:

Kirk: "." the community called a city must nurture roots, not hack through them." Weller: "They were going to build new communities/It was going to be pie in the sky -/But the piss stench in the hallways and broken down lifts/Say the planners dream went wrong:

Kirk: ", , . civic restoration must be founded upon the long-established customs, habits, and political insti­tutions of a community." Weller: "And the public school boy computors .... keep spewing out our future -/The house in the country designs the 14th floor."

As thi_s article demonstrated, it is not an anomaly for a leading rock songwriter to occasionally have the same point of view as the tradition­alist author of The Conservative Mind.

••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

TIle ~ Review December, 1982

' '', .... bl''~· .. -..'~Il.O»,~.a' ........ '''' __ ''''<O'~ ~ ." ................ ·~ ........ ~~ ~,.,..._ .. , ... _.,." .. .

•••••••••••••••••••••••••••• On the other hand, the economists

believe that the anti-Communists and the cultural conservatives are often statists at heart . They were, the econ­omists believe , at best indifferent to the growth of the state and its man­agement of the economy so long as the state was anti-Communist and supported traditional cultural and moral values. '

At the outset then the three major ideological groups in modern conser­vatism were divided in philosophy and isolated from one another within the academy. They were alienated from the dominant ideological tradi­tion within the society and excluded from the chief sources of financial support in the academy, the philan­thropic foundations, and the govern­ment which increasingly supported research and cultural creativity. So how was this movement of isolated individuals able to achieve a sem- . blance of ideological unity, a measure of support for research, publication, and graduate students, and an organ­izational structure which eventually made it possible for the movement to become culturally and politically ef­fective?

As a university professor I would like to be able to say thatthe univer­sities early identified conservative thought as a "comer" and encouraged it as they encouraged the regnant liberalism of the Establishment. Were I to make such a claim it would be a half-truth. For the most part the university as an official body was more apt to patronize the liberal Es­tablishment than conservative in­novators. Open hostility to conserva­tie professors was not so much a mat­ter of policy as a pervasive climate of opinion.

It must be said to the credit of the universities that their academic mor­als were better than their ideological instincts, and that while they did not encourage they could not positively discourage the development of intel­lectual conservatism. A chilly neu­tra~ity on the part of the university and a sense of academic fair play made possible the continued develop­ment of the conservative movement . as an intellectual force,

The decisive factor nonetheless in fostering the development of the con­servative movement lay outside the university - in the publication of books and articles, for which conser­vatives owe an everlasting debt to such men as Henry Regnery and such journals as NATIONAL REVIEW and Modern Age, and in research, scholar­ship, journalism, and the training of graduate students. These latter activ­ities are dependent upon patronage, though, and in the 1950s that patron­age could come from only one place: a handful of foundations which delib­erately chose to subsidize conserva­tive intellectuals and their graduate students.

Tile Micblgan Review December, 1982

Draft They are not compromising any ot their rights by registering. These men have an obligation to our nation and to the soldiers who might someday be in combat, waiting for fresh troops to arrive. It is a sad but true fact that in a crisis situation, where the United States is in danger of any sort, indi­vidual right may be suspended for good of the nation. There must be a compromise between freedoms and duties in times of emergency and these men should look on registration as a duty to their country. They ap­parently do not. The sheer hypocrisy of liberal resisters' viewpoint is astounding. They expect Uncle Sam to give them hundreds of services from welfare and social security to student loans and grants while they, in return, are unwilling to insure that America is prepared for a crisis. What do they hold that is dearer to them than their freedom? The price of this freedom is eternal vigilance, We must be ready to serve our country in an emergency. This means 100% draft registration by all eligibie males.

These foundations and institutions performed yet another service for the conservative movement: they held its conflicting elements in some kind of unity. They served as patrons to the broad spectrum of conservative polit­ical, economic, and cultural philo­sophies. The foundations provided the centripetal force that kept the tension-filled philosophies of the movement from flying off, comet­like, into eccentric orbits. Today, po­litical power serves much the same function. Conservative political power is based upon an alliance of minority intellectual perspectives. It will succeed only so long as these interests are held in balance, their claims compromised and adjusted to each other and their views given a minimal harmonization.

From all of this, it should be ob­vious why the Reagan Administration has not always practiced an ideolog­ically coherent politics. As so often, we have been ideological bedfellows making strange politics. I'

Finally, I want to point out that po­litical victory is a real danger to any movement heavily dependent on ideas. The "corridors of power" are very different from the world of the academy. In order to remain dynamic the conservative movement must de­vote as much time and emphasis to ideas as it does to power. When the exercise of power becomes so beguil­ing that the theoretician is tempted to become the practitioner, conserva­tism will be in a bad way. The acad­emician, the university, and the foun~ dation remain essential to the future success of the conservative move­ment.

(The Na tional Review)

UNCLASSIFIED ADS

FOR SALE

TWO somewhat Inhabited islands oft southern Argentina. Erosion and untilled soil major obstacles in revital ization efforts. Interested, contact Prime Minister Marg Thatcher. 10 Downy Street, London, England. (IF extremely interested in acquiring islands, contact Defense Minister, BUENOS AIRES, ARGENTINA, Full invasion plans availabl~)

BOOKS

How to Dominate the Caribbean Basin In Six Steps, by Fidel Castro. $19.62 to Freedom Palace, Havana, Cuba. Requests must be funnelled through Nicaragua.

It Takes Two to Tango, Step·by­step instructions on the fundamental of nuclear arms limitation talks. Included in the Appendix is a detailed description titled The Methods of Deceit . MOSCOW BOOKS, 232 pages

COOKING with PBB - A timely cookbook detailing hundreds of new, exciting recipes with infested meat and poultry. Send $11 .95 to FIRE-RETARDANT PARANOIA, P.O. Box 1975, Battle Creek, Michigan.

BUSINESS OPPORTU NITIES

Interested In starting a fuel 011 distributorship? II so, we can provide low interest loans and pay above market prices for your oil. Contact: Office of the Mayor, City of DetrOit.

Are you an ex-con? Experienced in fraud, extortion, and/or blackmail? Want to apply your skills, but can't find a steady Job? Visit the U.S. Internal Revenue Service employment office nearest you. We are an Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action employer.

Looking for one or more persons experienced in blackmai l. Familiarity with review boards preferred. Contact University of Michigan Art School. Immediate reply requested.

Looking tor people who believe Dense·pac wil l work. Send resumes to Office of Non-working Solutions, Washington, D,C.

Publ ic school teachers needed. Applicants must be experienced in hand-to-hand combat, coffee· making, and bureaucratic surv ival. Send applications to your local public school board. Allow two to three years for reply

Political Science/Sociology professors needed for teaching at the University level. No expenence in Real World necessary. Abi lily to communicate idea optional, Interest In obtaining cushy bureaucratic Job in next administration mandatory. Apply In person: OffIce of Pseudo­Sciences, University of MichIgan, Ann Arbor

Need Work? Lose a squeaker in November? Not tra ined for anything outside of Lansing or Washington? We have a Job for you. Contact Lobbyists UnlimIted. Democrats preferred.

Atlention Freshman legislators: We have a number of experienced campaign managers available to start work now for '84. Don'l walt, secure your place in American's history now. Call now to set up interviews with our highly competent applicants We also have a number of presently unemployed staffers: legIslative assistants, clerks, press secretaries and administrative assistants. Call Staffers Unlimited. Results no guaranteed,

MISCELLANEOUS

Scapegoal sought. Must be willing to accept all responsibility Contact Messrs. Begin and Sharon, Jerusalem, Israel

LEARN HYPNOTISM from an experienced evangelical minister. Establish your own "church"! Earn millions of dollars! Start bizarre boycotts of harmless books, movies, and consumer products! Your word can become The Word in 5 short lessons! Send $150 cash for your own lesson book to: The Church 0

Everlast ing Non-Taxable Income, Mooseankle, Arkansas, 32865

CAUSES SOUGHT. Hollywood Coalition 01 Self-Righteous Actors seeks emotional Issue on which to take an attention-get ling stand Send your Ideas today, we'll consider anything,

.. , NEED CASH? Dollar bills printed Whlle-U·Walt ! Insured by U.S. taxpayers, (They're legit)1 Order now: U.S. Treasury Department, Washing ton, D,C

Page 15

__ .... _..,·_"'· ........... ..-..'l'l,\Je· .. rnnw "' ........ '1£," y~ .. ··".,.""'4o>;<UO!.:.:::.:.;,;..,.:,.:::~~.~Ii,:.._ .

L "

'dJappy 'dJoQtday~

trite uUtchigOtl

CRevieW

ol1d CBegt CUJ~heg ~fl

the COtntl1g cAlew gjeofl.

The MlchlgaD Review

P.o. Box 1842 Ann Arbor, HI 48106

Society in every state is a blessing, but Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst State, an intolerable one

Thomas Paine

"It is the engineer who has the power to t~rn mice into men , dreams into reality, steel into bridges, cement into buildings for at the heart of every engineer there lies a magician ."

John DeLorean unemployed auto workers

"[TJhere is no social entity with a good that undergoes some sacrifice for its own good. There are only individual people, different individual people, with their own individual lives. Using one of these people for the benefit of others, uses him and benefits the others. Nothing more ."

Robert Nozick Anarchy, State, and Utopia

"Every decent man is ashamed of the government he lives under~. "

H.L. Mencken

" . .. I would think that if you understood what Communism was you would hope, you would pray on your knees that we would someday become Communists ... "

Jane Fonda professional comedienne

"Even if we have to go without bread, we Albanians do not violate prin­ciples. We do not betray Marxism-Leninism."

Enver Hoxha

"I always thought government was to promote the general welfare, not provide it."

Ronald Reagan former president, screen Actors Guild